I was thinking recently about this.
I'm a longtime subscriber but sometimes the magazine bothers me. You know when they're like "INCEPTION is going to be a smart summer blockbuster!" or whatever for months leading up to the film. But then a month later through the rest of the year they start taking on a condescending tone towards it like "Brainy INCEPTION was too confusing for audiences", like "nice try". Because the only thing that matters is box office and they have to report from some kind of mass consensus instead of ever standing up for a film. I think this also leads to all these lame films getting nominated for Oscars because its like "what can we all agree on and get all worked up about" even though no one will care about this shit by next year. I know its only EW and not like Film Comment or something but c'mon EW, stand up for something!
Does anybody know what I'm talking about?
this could be your polanski's illegitimate baby moment.
Haha. Anyone who reads the magazine should know!
So this movie is going to bomb because people have to think when they watch it? I know I've been ragey lately but motherfuck everyone.
I'm not talking about Inception specifically, though I think it will be gently dismissed by the mainstream for not making ENOUGH money. But just in general they have no convictions. They'll never hype something, have it underperform and stick up for it for being great. It's like they have to side with the masses. Hive minded.
They are a pop-culture magazine and thus only seem to report on what pop culture is talking or thinking about. EW is like USA Today meets the water-cooler.
they called these two goofy guys from Australia the It off-broadway performers in 1998, I read about it and sought them out and made friends with them. I thought that was pretty cool, sticking up for the little guy.
I superscribed to EW for years but stopped about a year or so ago because it was just generally getting trashy and more focused on celebrity gossip than anything else. Bringing in Diablo Cody as a columnist was the last straw.
I get what you mean, Mod. It is frustrating, but them's the breaks. They have a lot of advertisers to appease and can't really champion the little guy.
Quote from: Stefen on July 15, 2010, 01:17:06 PM
I get what you mean, Mod. It is frustrating, but them's the breaks. They have a lot of advertisers to appease and can't really champion the little guy.
I'm not saying they have to spend 6 months pimping The Fountain after it comes out or something. I'm just saying when they refer to it, instead of like "headscratcher flop The Fountain" they could be like "ambitious divisive The Fountain" or something. Like, just don't refer to something dismissively because THE MOST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD didn't get it. Like because something wasn't Avatard doesn't mean it wasn't still good.
for what it is, a giant pop culture magazine, i actually think they're discriminating. The Wrestler was the #1 movie on some main critic guy's list a couple years ago.. they devoted a page or two to why avatar doesn't deserve to win best pic. they mega-hyped d9 the week before it came out. i think they have taste.
There definitely seems to be some push and pull in terms of the influences tugging on the magazine. I recall many occasions where the cover would have the latest big thing all hyped up, 5 page article with all the photos talking about how awesome it was going to be, then be the lead review revealing it as a dud. Stefan hit the nail on the head - they've just got a lot of money people they need to please. The magazine just seems to be a weird hybrid of a douche mainstream hype machine that kinda knows better but continues to listen to the corruptive voices in their head. But that's what it is, I guess, a mainstream corporate glossy.
EW's 25 greatest working directors list.
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20311937_20346922,00.html
What do we think?
haha.. well apart from the sambong criticism (pre-emptive) that it's american-centric.. it shouldn't have bygelow, edgar wright... and.. hate to say it but lynch may never make a good movie again, he has pretty much announced his retirement by imploding up his own ass.
they are weirdly accurate with placing wes anderson at the bottom of their list.. i think that's a great insult if he ever got to read it.. that is, after someone translates it to french and reprints it on scented paper.
according to their criteria of "the most talented, in-demand filmmakers behind the camera today" i guess fincher makes sense to be at number one but that hardly makes him the number one greatest director working today.. i also don't think it should be Godard or some idiot like that who only ever made 3 or 4 good movies anyway. PTA and Malick should be number one and the rest don't really matter.
Quote from: Stefen on February 24, 2011, 05:09:55 AM
What do we think?
I'll go with "Meaningless." If the right buzz surrounded more foreign filmmakers, they would be included on this list, but they don't. As far as I could tell, Mike Leigh is the only stature and longevity filmmaker from across the pond on the list. All others are either established franchises in America or operate on the right radar of buzz worthy right now. David O. Russel had a few projects foreclose on him in the last decade and Hollywood rejected his vision of comedic storytelling and because he resigns himself to making a fine boxing movie, he's now big? Well, since he's now willing to take on producer selected projects (namely: Mark Wahlberg), he's seeing a lot of green lights right now.
I wish Pedro Almodovar wasn't there. Him being in it makes the list completely insane and stupid not because he doesn't deserve it but because it means non-english directors are considered. Wong Kar Wai anyone?
Also Jim Jarmush and Michael Mann are better than some of these.
Katherin Bigelow better than James fucking Cameron is a farce and a travesty.
Also:
22. J.J. Abrams
THE EVIDENCE: Star Trek (2009), Mission: Impossible III (2006)
lol
WTF
strange days and near dark are great movies. too bad her evidence is only one film because they didn't do their research.
oh and polanski and eastwood have had it.
i forgot to say that last time.
Quote from: Pas on February 24, 2011, 07:45:20 AM
Wong Kar Wai anyone?
I think he nearly invalidated himself with My Blueberry Nights.
It's not a BAD list, but yeah tons of undeserving Americans. It basically follows the EW modus operandi of people who are hot right now.
I would have put Cronenberg on there in place of Wright or even Polanski. Cronenberg has been doing work and doesn't appear to be letting up. Glad to see Malick in the top 10 and PTA right outside it. If they're going by NOW they should take Spike Lee and Lynch off. Like P said with Wes Anderson, it would probably kick start Spike Lee and get him to make something relevant again.
Of course it's a bad list. It wouldn't be as bad if they sad : ''Hottest directors in hollywood right now'' or whatever, but 'greatest'?! Not even a mention of hollywood, too. Also, what a major overrate for Aronofsky.
Sounds like a stupid magazine. Doesn't sound like the people writing it are very smart either, or at least know much about cinema. They do sound like they know a lot about box office and how much popcorn this or that movie sold. Maybe they considered in their ratings of directors how much money people paid for extra butter in their popcorn. There is a huge markup in that sale so it's important for directors to realize you have to push the extra butter sale.
I read Sight and Sound a couple of times and it was smart. Maybe that's why their list of top directors is not so lame.
Sucks for you guys not to have english Cahiers. They have the best lists. They even talk about american cinema like 80% of the time (maybe more 30% but I want to sell it to you guys). It's weird because they sometimes love american movies that are critical flops in America. Like, they went apeshit over Bad Lieutenant Port of Call New Orleans. Oh no, the weirdest one is that they just LOVED War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise. Man they loved that one. It's as if not only do they not care what american critics say, they kind of despise them. French people, oh how we are awesome.
offensively american!
really though i think the kicker here is that in celebrating fincher as the "greatest" director working today, they cite benjamin button and aaron sorkin's facebook movie as the benchmark for his mastery of visual storytelling. mike leigh's inclusion seems especially bizarre to me. i didn't think him to be popular or fashionably obscure enough to make the cut for a list like this.
it's an entertainment weekly list. like gt said, meaningless.
the write-up on malick is so silly..
"All of his works seem to spring fully formed out of his mind and onto the screen"
are you serious?!?!?!?!?!?!? he's like, the least planned person ever. let alone director.
I'm just grateful it's not a photo of Michael Bay with "say what you will about him, he's insert however you measure some dude's success"-type blurbs.
When Ingmar Bergman was approached with the idea "everything is political", he said he preferred for people to look at things as if they were all ethical. More and more, magazines and critical appetites feel political in whatever trends they are promoting. You look at a magazine like Entertainment Weekly and others and all you see is the politics of taste.
Haha gt sometimes you talk as if you've swallowed the little book of calm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez0KK0eOT5s).
Here's what you were like before you swallowed it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9o701S_xFA).
this thread shouldn't even exist.
who gives a shit about entertainment weekly?
entertainment . weekly.
that should be enough.
cahiers du cinema, that's a thread. they have interesting and plain weird selections. they loved the fucking village. they find interesting shit in the flops. and they choose good movies too.
:embrace:
Quote from: Alexandro on February 26, 2011, 05:22:11 PM
this thread shouldn't even exist.
who gives a shit about entertainment weekly?
entertainment . weekly.
Read the first post. I made it to talk about how EW has no POV.