Overrated directors

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

Take Clint Eastwood - like his movies but for a majority of them, he had never done anything revolutionary with them. They look good and are well done but any decent director could have done it.

The thing about Clint Eastwood vs an ordinary director is that there are certain aspects about his directing (very story oriented, no SPX), production (his own company), production crew (same crew OVER and OVER again), and then when he stars in the movies he uses specific themes that are replayed OVER and OVER again.

People seem to forget, that before there was Steven Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment or James Cameron's Lightstrom....there was Clint Eastwood's production company called The Malpaso Company......Eastwood is a legend not just for the acting part of his resume, but everything that goes on behind it to make it a Clint Eastwood movie.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

The thing about Clint Eastwood vs an ordinary director is that there are certain aspects about his directing (very story oriented, no SPX), production (his own company), production crew (same crew OVER and OVER again), and then when he stars in the movies he uses specific themes that are replayed OVER and OVER again.

People seem to forget, that before there was Steven Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment or James Cameron's Lightstrom....there was Clint Eastwood's production company called The Malpaso Company......Eastwood is a legend not just for the acting part of his resume, but everything that goes on behind it to make it a Clint Eastwood movie.

fair enough. He is one of those few people in a position to do all that and that makes him a Hollywood legend but not a directing legend. not saying he isn't a good director because he is but for the most part, his directing style is very straight forward with few surprises. He follows in the footsteps of Leone but really doesn't reinvent the genre like Leone did. it is like how i heard John Mellencamp described one time - he is that solid shortstop who does a good job but never does anything to really stand out. for me, that is Eastwood as a director for a lot of his movies. I do think though that when he acts, produces and stars in a movie, he makes a really good movie because he is so invested in it at that point. Again, not bashing Eastwood because i think he has done a solid job as director, just don't see his as one of those "great" directors like an Orson Wells.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

fair enough. He is one of those few people in a position to do all that and that makes him a Hollywood legend but not a directing legend. not saying he isn't a good director because he is but for the most part, his directing style is very straight forward with few surprises. He follows in the footsteps of Leone but really doesn't reinvent the genre like Leone did. it is like how i heard John Mellencamp described one time - he is that solid shortstop who does a good job but never does anything to really stand out. for me, that is Eastwood as a director for a lot of his movies. I do think though that when he acts, produces and stars in a movie, he makes a really good movie because he is so invested in it at that point. Again, not bashing Eastwood because i think he has done a solid job as director, just don't see his as one of those "great" directors like an Orson Wells.

That's because Welles was all about Welles. Orson constantly called attention to himself as a director, which is why the auteur movement latched on to him, and Hitchcock also. Eastwood is an actor, came up in industry as an actor, and for him, the camera is a silent window. For him - and many others - directing isn't about pulling a Fincher and passing your camera through the inner workings of a toaster (Panic Room) - it's about communication, and how it is best achieved. Rather than focusing on complicated camera setups and crane shots and dolly sooms, Eastwood's camera observes. If you don't notice the direction - that doesn't mean it isn't there. Same thing with Coppola's work in The Godfather, or - I submit to you - Spielberg's work in Lincoln.

The world of cinema is vast and diverse, with many modes and genres and styles. I think it is a little limited to think of great direction only in the modes of those who use their cameras in the most overt ways possible. There's more to it than that.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

That's because Welles was all about Welles. Orson constantly called attention to himself as a director, which is why the auteur movement latched on to him, and Hitchcock also. Eastwood is an actor, came up in industry as an actor, and for him, the camera is a silent window. For him - and many others - directing isn't about pulling a Fincher and passing your camera through the inner workings of a toaster (Panic Room) - it's about communication, and how it is best achieved. Rather than focusing on complicated camera setups and crane shots and dolly sooms, Eastwood's camera observes. If you don't notice the direction - that doesn't mean it isn't there. Same thing with Coppola's work in The Godfather, or - I submit to you - Spielberg's work in Lincoln.

The world of cinema is vast and diverse, with many modes and genres and styles. I think it is a little limited to think of great direction only in the modes of those who use their cameras in the most overt ways possible. There's more to it than that.

maybe Eastwood is a bad example since he directs and produces and it is hard to separate them in his movies - he is the total package in cases like that and personally, i like his movies. sometimes simplicity is the best direction out there - it looks simple but there is a lot of work to it. you won't get any agruement out of me on Eastwood.