Author Topic: Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)  (Read 9641 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cowboykurtis

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +8
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2005, 12:16:30 AM »
0
Quote from: Pubrick
the 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.
...your excuses are your own...

Ghostboy

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4892
  • Respect: +377
    • http://www.road-dog-productions.com/
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2005, 12:24:33 AM »
0
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.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2005, 12:46:14 AM »
0
Quote from: cowboykurtis
Quote from: Pubrick
the 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.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

cowboykurtis

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +8
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2005, 12:56:43 AM »
0
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.
...your excuses are your own...

Tictacbk

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 662
  • Respect: +178
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #19 on: November 03, 2005, 02:39:57 AM »
0
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.

analogzombie

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
  • Respect: +2
    • unrelenting force
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2005, 10:24:54 AM »
0
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.
"I have love to give, I just don't know where to put it."

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2005, 10:33:47 AM »
0
dissing EWS + praising tarantino = INVALIDATED

at least doyle was consistent.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2005, 11:22:30 AM »
0
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.
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.

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5510
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +361
    • my site
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2005, 01:01:47 PM »
0
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.
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

killafilm

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 359
  • Respect: 0
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #24 on: November 03, 2005, 01:04:39 PM »
0
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?

Quote
I 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.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2005, 01:21:57 PM »
0
Quote from: pete
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.


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...
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.

SHAFTR

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • You brought two too many
  • Respect: +4
    • rmlumley.com
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #26 on: November 03, 2005, 01:25:27 PM »
0
The fact that Dolye generalizes an entire culture of films is pretty ridiculous.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10761
  • Respect: +698
    • Floating Heads
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #27 on: November 03, 2005, 02:29:35 PM »
0
well, all cinematographers are idiots.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

analogzombie

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
  • Respect: +2
    • unrelenting force
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2005, 02:53:37 PM »
0
Quote from: Pubrick
dissing 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: SoNowThen
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.


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.
"I have love to give, I just don't know where to put it."

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
  • Respect: +151
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2005, 02:56:09 PM »
0
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.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy