Author Topic: influence of directors: categories  (Read 5684 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
influence of directors: categories
« on: December 08, 2003, 12:53:04 PM »
0
I like to consider sociological changes as progressing and changing constantly, conforming to Hegel's view of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

In cinema history, we find the same patterns: every director is influenced by the preceeding ones, but some are more than others, and, more importantly, some have more influence themselves than others.

I would cite Griffith as being influenced strongly by preceeding directors, but he himself also did have a great impact on the following ones, Hitchcock would be a very good example for the latter situation, but certainly not for the first. Tarantino would fit into the Griffith category. Kubrick certainly had hardly any influence at all, because his style was so unique. Eastwood has no particular influence, but he certailny has been inspired by directo he worked with as an actor. And so on.

Therefore I would put up four categories:

#1 Griffith category: influenced and having an influence
#2 Hitchcock category: not that much influenced, but having a great influence on others
#3 Eastwood category being influenced a lot without having an influence on others
#4 Kubrick category: Neither particularly influenced nor having a greater influence


Any thoughts or comments? Is this train of thought worth being continued?

NEON MERCURY

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
  • Respect: +16
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2003, 12:55:25 PM »
0
what?????

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2003, 12:56:26 PM »
0
two thoughts:

wasn't Griffith basically the father of the feature (which would make it hard to say he was influenced)?

also, wasn't Kubrick heavily influenced by Ophuls?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Re: influence of directors: categories
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2003, 12:56:34 PM »
0
Quote from: chriskelvin
Kubrick certainly had hardly any influence at all, because his style was so unique.


An exception would be Todd Haynes's Safe.

I like your categories... won't you try putting some of the board's favorite directors into them?
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Cecil

  • Guest
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2003, 12:57:50 PM »
0
yes id like to hear more of this theory of yours

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
Re: influence of directors: categories
« Reply #5 on: December 08, 2003, 01:12:45 PM »
0
Quote from: godardian
Quote from: chriskelvin
Kubrick certainly had hardly any influence at all, because his style was so unique.


An exception would be Todd Haynes's Safe.

I like your categories... won't you try putting some of the board's favorite directors into them?


PTA is really hard to categorize. I would say he is in cat 3 for now. He may get into cat 2, if future directors will adapt his style and ideas about filmmaking. But I'd say he is very influenced himself by pop culture and similar social phenomena.
The Coens belong to cat 4, Lynch to cat 2 or cat 4 for his best films. The Wachovsky Bros. belong to cat 1. Scorsese to cat 3.

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #6 on: December 08, 2003, 01:16:48 PM »
0
Brian de Palma goes in category number 1, I think.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #7 on: December 08, 2003, 01:20:17 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
two thoughts:

wasn't Griffith basically the father of the feature (which would make it hard to say he was influenced)?

also, wasn't Kubrick heavily influenced by Ophuls?


Griffith basically condensed the cinematographic achievements from the Lumière Bros. to Edwin S. Porter. About Kubrick being influenced by Ophüls, I can't say anything, for I have never heard that theory. Might be interesting to check that out.

NEON MERCURY

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
  • Respect: +16
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #8 on: December 08, 2003, 01:22:18 PM »
0
okay i see the point of this thread now....(i'm not really that smart..but...phuck it)....

schumacher, #2

btw-shouldnn't this be in the director forum?

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #9 on: December 08, 2003, 01:23:06 PM »
0
Quote from: godardian
Brian de Palma goes in category number 1, I think.


Oh yes, very much so, with a very strong link to cat 3. Eisenstein would be cat 1, with a strong link to cat 2. So we could even divide those categories into cat 1.3 for de Palma and cat 1.2 for Eisenstein.

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #10 on: December 08, 2003, 01:24:31 PM »
0
Quote from: NEON MERCURY


btw-shouldnn't this be in the director forum?


Hmmm...wouldn't that exclude PTA or the Coens, etc, for instance?

NEON MERCURY

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
  • Respect: +16
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #11 on: December 08, 2003, 01:29:33 PM »
0
..not sure .but the way i look at it if you are starting a topic about more than one director or if the thread consists of opinions/facts about more than one it should be in the director forum......

(i.e. the PTA vs. Marty thread)........but you got a good topic going so i'll shut up...NOW..

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2003, 01:33:33 PM »
0
I like the theory, but Scorsese is most definitely cat.1, not 3. He's done his fair share of influencing...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2003, 01:47:23 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
I like the theory, but Scorsese is most definitely cat.1, not 3. He's done his fair share of influencing...


I know, he is also very hard to categorize. I would propose a compromise: cat 3.1. I don't think he has that much influence, concerning his style (violence, working with method actors (De Niro, so to say...), a participating, influencing camera) and his topics (catholicism transcended to criminal or semi-criminal subcultures), and the connection of both. You don't find that in other director's works, especially not this symbiotic connection of topic and style.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #14 on: December 08, 2003, 02:23:10 PM »
0
but his particular style of montage and camera movement (via sequence construction) has definitely influenced PTA and Wes Anderson

and his perverse attention to detail, as well as his embracing of criminal on-the-fringes characters and explosive violence has been well utilized by Tarantino.

but I will agree that he has a "thing" all his own, which is of course why he is one of the greats.


also, is it safe to say Welles fits firmly in cat.1?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy