Directors who put Style over Substance.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by John Klein

The issue with Refn for people is that his work requires a lot more outside knowledge and a watchful eye. He does not explain anything in his films and when he does, that is something you need to pick up with your eyes because he tells his stories visually. Refn is mainly lived by people who are interested in film, not by the general public.

I'm not in the group that calls Only God Forgives a trash pile, I'm actually glad I own it because it is a gorgeous ****ing film (I love neon lights). But I definitely won't argue with people who say it is a bit shallow in the story department. I could follow it because I know how Refn works but I needed to watch a critic discuss the film to fully get what happened it in. I didnt know why the karaoke scenes were suppose to be so important that we kept going back to them, that was something you needed outside knowledge to understand.

Ill fight someone who talks crap about Refn though. The man is a great director, his films aren't for everyone but the man is a master with his camera and colors (and he is partially color blind to boot).

Wait...people didn't like it because they couldn't understand it?

What was to understand?

[Ultra_Violence]

Originally Posted by John Klein

The issue with Refn for people is that his work requires a lot more outside knowledge and a watchful eye. He does not explain anything in his films and when he does, that is something you need to pick up with your eyes because he tells his stories visually. Refn is mainly lived by people who are interested in film, not by the general public.

I'm not in the group that calls Only God Forgives a trash pile, I'm actually glad I own it because it is a gorgeous ****ing film (I love neon lights). But I definitely won't argue with people who say it is a bit shallow in the story department. I could follow it because I know how Refn works but I needed to watch a critic discuss the film to fully get what happened it in. I didnt know why the karaoke scenes were suppose to be so important that we kept going back to them, that was something you needed outside knowledge to understand.

Ill fight someone who talks crap about Refn though. The man is a great director, his films aren't for everyone but the man is a master with his camera and colors (and he is partially color blind to boot).

I don't disagree with anything you've said. He is colour blind I'm sure I've read and heard a few times, he or someone is able to do something in the editing process that let's him see the colour as is.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Ultra_Violence

All the directors getting tarnished with the "All their films have no substance only style" brush, have been putting out thought provoking work for years even decades now. If you don't like they way they tell their stories, don't watch it's as simple as that. Nearly every director at one point in their career has been accused of this, simply because people don't "get" said film(s). It's not the directors fault.

But there's nothing inherently wrong with being "all style, no subtance." Not every movie needs to be a full meal, junk food is perfectly fine sometimes.

[MifuneFan]

Guy Ritchie

[P-Rock]

David Lynch
Robert Rodriguez
Ryuhei Kitamura

[aiman04]

Zack Snyder. This should be in every reply in this thread.

[trans8010]

Zack Snyder if he would grow up, out of this juvenile "you just don't understand, I'm dark and edgy, and complex and nuanced and you just don't get me" attitude, could potentially be a very a well respected and acclaimed filmmaker. He's in his 40's and his work still resembles that of a film school grad. He refuses to evolve.

[Jaymole]

The first 2 that come to mind are Tarsem Singh & Zack Snyder, the difference being Singh's films are a lot harder to sit through.

[P-Rock]

I thought Drive was just okay, but the cliched story got in the way. I also thought Ron Perlman was miscast. Only God Forgives on the other hand was pure Refn. I still think his Pusher trilogy and Fear X are his best efforts, but I'm looking forward to The Neon Demon.

[AaronJ]

Well, for one thing, plot and story don't equal substance. A film can have almost no story but be loaded with substance. And for me, plot is the least interesting element of film.

Obviously, film is a visual medium primarily. So, all sorts of substance can be portrayed solely through the visual elements being used. And I think that directors like NWR or Aronofsky are able to do this so well. Of course, they also get criticized for their styles.

[P-Rock]

If we are comparing directors, then I'd say that Aronofsky has more substance than Refn. The latter's movies are mostly audiovisual trips where the story isn't that important, especially in his later efforts.

[P-Rock]

I like Snyder too, although he has burned a big bridge with me when he made Sucker Punch and Man of Steel. MoS was okay I guess (I prefer Sup Returns) but SP was horrible.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by P-Rock

I like Snyder too, although he has burned a big bridge with me when he made Sucker Punch and Man of Steel. MoS was okay I guess (I prefer Sup Returns) but SP was horrible.

Yeah, we're not on the same page when it comes to Sucker Punch, that's for sure.

[warrian]

Sucker Punch is a perfect example of style trumping substance in every respect. Maybe THE perfect example.

And it's not that there's no substance there either.

My problem with that film is that all three stages of subjective reality are stylized beyond what is reasonable to get the point across. Our hero goes from a hyper-stylized dark and gritty world of murder and abuse to a hyper-stylized Moulin Rouge-like musical theatre sex slave prison, which is such a living nightmare that we need to psychologically escape to a hyper-stylized digital anime war-zone game-world so that we can somehow feel empowered again.

Nothing in that movie is anchored in anyway to any known reality, rendering it virtually meaningless outside the accomplished visuals.

And I'm at least a mild Zack Snyder fan.

[P-Rock]

Originally Posted by warrian

Sucker Punch is a perfect example of style trumping substance in every respect. Maybe THE perfect example.

And it's not that there's no substance there either.

My problem with that film is that all three stages of subjective reality are stylized beyond what is reasonable to get the point across. Our hero goes from a hyper-stylized dark and gritty world of murder and abuse to a hyper-stylized Moulin Rouge-like musical theatre sex slave prison, which is such a living nightmare that we need to psychologically escape to a hyper-stylized digital anime war-zone game-world so that we can somehow feel empowered again.

Nothing in that movie is anchored in anyway to any known reality, rendering it virtually meaningless outside the accomplished visuals.

And I'm at least a mild Zack Snyder fan.

I think the director's cut of Watchmen is a masterpiece, but Sucker Punch is like watching a movie while getting sucker punched in the head repeatedly. Also, the fantasy worlds are very standard fare and unimaginative.

[doctor_who]

Originally Posted by P-Rock

I think the director's cut of Watchmen is a masterpiece, but Sucker Punch is like watching a movie while getting sucker punched in the head repeatedly. Also, the fantasy worlds are very standard fare and unimaginative.

Truth truth truth.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by warrian

Sucker Punch is a perfect example of style trumping substance in every respect. Maybe THE perfect example.

And it's not that there's no substance there either.

My problem with that film is that all three stages of subjective reality are stylized beyond what is reasonable to get the point across. Our hero goes from a hyper-stylized dark and gritty world of murder and abuse to a hyper-stylized Moulin Rouge-like musical theatre sex slave prison, which is such a living nightmare that we need to psychologically escape to a hyper-stylized digital anime war-zone game-world so that we can somehow feel empowered again.

Nothing in that movie is anchored in anyway to any known reality, rendering it virtually meaningless outside the accomplished visuals.

And I'm at least a mild Zack Snyder fan.

See, the reasons you don't like it are exactly the reasons I do like it. I don't feel like it needs to be anchored. I mean, it is anchored in one sense: Baby Girl's dissociation is very real and a realistic (in a psychological sense, not how the dissociation actually is realized) response to the trauma she's experienced.

Plus, the performances by Browning, Cornish, Malone (when isn't she awesome?), and the rest were really good. They knew that this was some sort of fantasy world, and they acted within that world very well I thought.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

See, the reasons you don't like it are exactly the reasons I do like it. I don't feel like it needs to be anchored. I mean, it is anchored in one sense: Baby Girl's dissociation is very real and a realistic (in a psychological sense, not how the dissociation actually is realized) response to the trauma she's experienced.

Plus, the performances by Browning, Cornish, Malone (when isn't she awesome?), and the rest were really good. They knew that this was some sort of fantasy world, and they acted within that world very well I thought.

I don't get the hate for it either, it is what it is. Though I didn't really like the film at least the guy had a vision and followed it right through to the end regardless of what anyone else was gonna think of it which is something to be admired these days.

[warrian]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

See, the reasons you don't like it are exactly the reasons I do like it. I don't feel like it needs to be anchored. I mean, it is anchored in one sense: Baby Girl's dissociation is very real and a realistic (in a psychological sense, not how the dissociation actually is realized) response to the trauma she's experienced.

Plus, the performances by Browning, Cornish, Malone (when isn't she awesome?), and the rest were really good. They knew that this was some sort of fantasy world, and they acted within that world very well I thought.

Sure, and don't take my arguments against it as trying to convince you not to like it. Too much of that around here.

For me it was just fantasy upon fantasy upon fantasy, which ultimately robbed me of any emotional impact. And without being emotionally involved, it became a slog. I wouldn't even care if I didn't actually like the central idea in the first place.

[Samus Aran]

I don't know how involved Baz Luhrmann was in the editing process of Moulin Rouge, but what's the point of singing and dancing routines if they're all quick cut Michael Bay style to the point where you have no sense of any of it?