topics
GreenCine Movie Talk
	Star Power Discuss the people who make what we watch.	59

Great Filmmakers As They Age
	Topic by: erostratus99 Posted: March 12, 2005 - 10:12 PM PST Last Reply: March 18, 2005 - 11:24 AM PST

page  1  2  3      prev | next

author	topic: Great Filmmakers As They Age
erostratus99	post #1  on March 12, 2005 - 10:12 PM PST   What do you think? Do great filmmakers continue to create profound or seminal work well into their later years? Or, do they simply lack the energy, vitality, naivete, motivation, incredulous optimism, etc., often found in youthful and burgeoning artists? Salient examples include Fellini, Kurosawa, Resnais, Bergman, Antonioni, Tarkovsky, et alii as an example: Resnais has lately created two saccharine musicals, of the latest starring the sylvan Audrey Tautou. This, from the director of the mournful "Nuit et Brouillard" and the bleak "Hiroshima mon Amour" among others. It is interesting to note, however, that some of the great filmmakers, as they age, turn an inflective eye to themselves, creating highly personal and, as a consequence, oblique introspections: e.g. Kurosawa's "Dreams", and Tarkovsky's "The Mirror".
hamano	post #2  on March 13, 2005 - 8:03 AM PST   Yeah, and how about Woody Allen? In Kurosawa's case, I wonder to what extent his buddy Ishiro Honda affected the outcome of his last few films. I think there's definitely a "style" there that marks them as not being purely Kurosawa's vision any more. And this isn't a debate that's limited to just film directors... can anyone say that John Paul George and Ringo's solo careers were superior to stuff they did during the Beatles years? Some writers are prolific and get better and better, but can you say that for Hemingway, Pynchon, or Salinger? I think it all depends on the style of how you work. Some artists don't want to be stuck in a rut... they want to bring something new and fresh for every big project. But I think even a great artist has only one or a few of these "big moments" allotted to them in life. That's when their need to create NEW things get a bit lost, resulting in works that disappoint fans who have come to have maybe too high expectations from the masters. There are other artists who have a more "craft" approach to their work... They work the same thing (themes, plots, characters) over and over and bring subtle refinements into each new work... Ozu, Eric Rohmer, people like that. And it's not like you can just pigeonhole directors as being just one type or the other. Over their careers they could even switch from one to the other, maybe suddenly, maybe over a few years. The world changes, too, and the audience with it. Do great filmmakers lose their "edge" as they age, or do our expectations of what the "edge" is change? Both, probably.
Eoliano	post #3  on March 13, 2005 - 10:14 AM PST   Good topic erostratus. Without a doubt, Ingmar Bergman and Andrei Tarkovsky are two directors who refined their craft during their final years as filmmakers. However, Bergman is still alive and kicking, directs for the theater, and has made several films for Swedish television, mostly adaptations of stage works. His later work for television aside, Bergman officially retired from filmmaking at the height of his career. His so-called final film, a magnificent sprawling swan song that has grown in stature over the last twenty years, is something of a culmination and distillation of most of his big themes. Maybe he felt that he had said everything he had to say for the big screen. Who knows what might have followed, Bergman-lite perhaps. Before he died at the youthful age of 54, Tarkovsky, who had grown tremendously as a filmmaker during his later years, had just made one of his finest, most disturbing films, however bleak and apocalyptic. Then, just when it seemed the best was yet to come, his candle expired.
Eoliano	post #4  on March 13, 2005 - 12:28 PM PST   > Yeah, and how about Woody Allen? A.O Scott responds.
hamano	post #5  on March 13, 2005 - 3:36 PM PST   > On March 12, 2005 - 10:12 PM PST erostratus99 wrote: > --------------------------------- > as an example: Resnais has lately created two saccharine musicals, of the latest starring the sylvan Audrey Tautou. Wait, is he saying that Tautou's acting is WOODEN? She certainly doesn't seem treelike in stature... Don't you think that artists who die in their prime are lionized in our culture exactly BECAUSE we never get to see their "later, less interesting" works? Oh, and the Woody Allen article, I think he's basically agreeing with what I said. Sure it's fine for Allen to continue to make films that HE wants to, rather than films that he thinks the audience wants to see. But the same could be said for ANY artist, whether they ever had a mass following or not. The difference is Allen still has a "Woody Allen brand" that still guarantees some kind of audience among both critics and ordinary film goers. Otherwise who's to say that his current output isn't some variation of folk or outsider art? He can get good actors in them because he has a pretty good streak of his actors getting Oscars...
erostratus99	post #6  on March 13, 2005 - 7:52 PM PST   I agree with you Hamano. However, I am more concerned with the impetus behind what makes an artist, specifically filmmakers, create works often not consistent with their past creations. Scil., where does the road fork? At what point does a filmmaker, who in the past may have given us something meatier and with more texture, decide to create sappy musicals or laconic and impressionistic dreamscapes? I admit that great artist's do mature and often create works correspondent with their wisdom. That said, has Resnais failed to realise his own mature voice? And for another example: did Hitchcock simply rely too heavily on the myth of his persona rather than his truly gifted ability to entrance and horrify? Think of Family Plot and Torn Curtain. Perhaps I am using extremely obvious examples and not considering the outlying and hidden factours of allegiance and collaboration. As you pointed out, Hamano, Kurosawa did partner with another, perhaps staining his own personal vision with that of the other. But, more often than not, in the world of film, consistency in style is important, as with most aesthetic mediums. As mentioned earlier, Kurosawa's style radically shifted away from the gorgeous epics of feudal Japan, to the more affected impressions of colour and sticky sentiment, often falling far short of his past effourts. Even Fellini, although discursiveness was one of his charms, seemed to produce very mundane, lackluster, and promiscuous work. Yes, watching the final pictures left me with a deep feeling of sadness and pity for the older Fellini. Regarding Salinger and Pynchon: the world may never know if their creative powers have been clouded by the cataract of aging and mental decay. I imagine, as relayed to us through family members, that if Salinger has written anything in the past forty years, then it may resemble a schizophrenic, obfuscated and jumbled case history of his erudite characters in "Franny and Zooey" and "Raise High the Roofbeam, Carpenters", if such a thing were possible! As for Pynchon, I only know of his reclusiveness and eccentricities; having never read his work, I will not comment. A great modern example of process and maturation is Henry Miller, who did not publish a majour work until well into his forties. Andrei Tarkovsky is a filmmaker, whom I admire quite fervently, taken from the world far too soon. I feel that he had reached a certain apex of maturation of vision with The Sacrifice and would have liked to have seen his consequent films. One may only imagine. Indeed, extrapolating from the quality of his earlier works, it may be presumed that his creative energies would have bested his own ability to construct his films effectively. He seems to have been exhaustively haunted by his own hyper-insightfulness, which became ever-apparent as his life waned. He shifted, quite gracefully, from derivative films, often based on other works, to personal inquests into his own insecurities of war, family, memory, time, and beauty. This transition is most salient from Solaris to The Mirror. Audrey Tautou: a beautiful and sylvan creature. No, I don't think her acting is wooden, regardless of the arboreal intimation. I was referring more to her sprite-like countenance and carriage. To my knowledge of Greek mythology, sprites often lived in wooded areas, hence the reference. I am quite satisfied that Bergman no longer makes feature films. I am always fearful of an artist continuing to create out of necessity rather than motivation, as the artist may possibly produce an inferior work (often not appropriate for a master) or worse, create musicals! It is preferable to quietly slip into oblivion than to be the guest who can't accept that the party concluded hours earlier. I have insistently disregarded Woody Allen films for the past several years. I have never been that fond of his brand of sentimental awkwardness and self-deprecatory humour.
hamano	post #7  on March 13, 2005 - 10:20 PM PST   My pet project is following the career of Peter Weir... His early Australian films were BRILLIANT then he became a much more craft conscious film maker starting with Witness... I didn't think the beauty of his true power shone out again until Fearless. Master and Commander was entertaining, but I thought he was trying too hard to do a Ridley Scott. My favorite films of his are still Picnic at Hanging Rock, Last Wave, Gallipolli and The Year of Living Dangerously... I don't think Weir gets enough credit for perhaps influencing a lot of current Asian cinema with Dangerously. I hope he comes back around to making films that try to show some kind of transcendence beyond just visual epic flair. I guess Clint Eastwood is the exception that proves the rule? Or is he still just at the start of his career (as a director)?
erostratus99	post #8  on March 14, 2005 - 12:28 AM PST   I must admit my ignorance of the work of Peter Weir, other than The Truman Show and Dead Poets Society, both of which I liked (minus JIm Carrey). AlthoughI have yet to see Master and Commander, I have heard uncertain reviews: some reviling it as art-house pretense with Ridley Scott verbalism, and others more boastful in their proclamations, saying that it was akin to Gladiator for the thinking man. I don't know quite where that leads, but I would certainly sit and watch based on his past projects. Ah, Clint Eastwood. I am ambivalent about his work. In relation to his age and his film direction, I would say that he is near the beginning of his more refined craft as a director. Although, I would hestitate to signify him as mature enough in his abilities to wield the viewer enthralled with his more recent effourts. In contrast to his newly minted pugilistic drama, he directed, begining in the mid seventies, a series of action dramas (Firefox, Sudden Impact) centred around a wizened loner with a bent to be a stoic hero; not exactly worthy of notice. His direction, in the past, was replete with action film cliches and trite dialogue. While his more recent pictures are not precisely well honed and polished paradigms of filmmaking, they do display the eagerness of Eastwood to tell a simple story as well as entertain, all in a much less puerile fashion. Of note in the category of film actours who also practice and create other noteworthy modes of expression is Sam Shepard; a far better playwright than actour, whose writing work also reached a veritable peak with True West and Paris, Texas
woozy	post #9  on March 14, 2005 - 12:51 AM PST   I honestly think Woody Allen is flawed man who simply couldn't handle a personal scandal being made public. Since the whole Mia Farrow break-up he simply is too afraid to look past his cliche's and platitudes about great artists/weak humans which he clings desparately to believe even though he has seen nothing new there for fourteen years. As for Peter Weir my favorites are the 4th Wave and Galipoli (but especially the 4th wave). The Truman Show and Master and Commander are about as typical of Weir as AI is of Kubrik... well, maybe that's not accurate but These are certainly not the movies to get a full impression. The Preface of Kurt Vonnegut's novel Timequake was basically an apology for being too old to write a good novel so he's sorry he's foisting this chum off on the readers. He compared himself to Hemingway when he sweated blood to write "the Old Man and the Sea" and critics panned it. He seemed to take it as fact that writers just simply outlive their game. I don't know why that should be. Fortunately there are many who stay brilliant throughout their lives but the majority don't. I haven't any idea why.
kamapuaa	post #10  on March 14, 2005 - 1:51 AM PST   I think there's a lot of directors who have maintained excellence throughout their careers, or at least for decades at a time. Sergio Leone ended with "Once Upon a Time in America," Fritz Lang ended with "Thousand Eyes of Dr. Mabuse," etc. I'm more familiar with current directors, I'm sure anybody here could name many directors who have been going strong for 20+ years. Erostatus99, I disagree about Clint Eastwood. Starting 30+ years ago with "Play Misty For Me," he's made movies which obviously strive to be more than simple mass entertainment. He's also made movies which are entirely commercial. His career should be judged with the understanding that "Dirty Harry 4" was made with different intents and motivations than "Million Dollar Baby" or "High Plains Drifter." Actually if you pay attention only these more artistic movies, I think Eastwood is the most auteur-ish major American director. And the archetype "wizened loner with a bent to be a stoic hero" defines much of the best cinema, doesn't it?
kamapuaa	post #11  on March 14, 2005 - 2:01 AM PST   About Woody Allen - I think his career dropped off long before his affair with Soon Yi became public, perhaps after "Hannah and Her Sisters" in 1986? And these repeated cliches and platitudes were a part of his work since the beginning. Anyway, "Sweet and Lowdown," "Bullets Over Broadway," "Mighty Aphrodite" are among his best movies since Hannah, and all came out after the scandal.
dh22	post #12  on March 14, 2005 - 5:45 AM PST   I believe this happens with a lot of people, not just artists. Thinkers, in general. I work with a lot of academics, and they all seem to loose a little something as they get older. Maybe its the lack of energy to obsess over an idea. Or, maybe the mind does behave like a muscle, and wears down with age. A lot of it is also originality. Its easier to do when you are young, and not set in your ways, but when you get older free thinking probably becomes a little more difficult. (I'm speculating, of course, because I'm not old, so I don't know. Maybe hamano can fill us in.)
hamano	post #13  on March 14, 2005 - 6:18 AM PST   > On March 14, 2005 - 2:01 AM PST kamapuaa wrote: > --------------------------------- > About Woody Allen - I think his career dropped off long before his affair with Soon Yi became public You know, maybe he changed after his real life began to resemble his film plots/characters rather than the other way around.... I mean, what do you do after THAT? Do you need to say anything in fictional form (other than excuses and apologies) when the public story turns to your REAL love life, breakups, custody battles, etc.? Maybe after that your art becomes your refuge, rather than an outlet... and a refuge is for yourself, not for others. I'd say Hannah and Her Sisters was Allen's last "great" film that had that measured mixture of poignancy and humor. Hmm... his attention seems to wander after he makes a "great" film with his muse/mate of the moment. How much longer did his personal relationship with Diane Keaton last after Annie Hall? One more film or so? Right now maybe his problem is that he doesn't have a muse/mate who can act.
hamano	post #14  on March 14, 2005 - 6:33 AM PST   > On March 14, 2005 - 12:51 AM PST woozy wrote: > --------------------------------- > As for Peter Weir my favorites are the 4th Wave and Galipoli (but especially the 4th wave). 4th Wave and Gallipoli are the same thing, isn't it? If that's your favorite at least you could get the name right, one would think...
Eoliano	post #15  on March 14, 2005 - 6:51 AM PST   > 4th Wave and Gallipoli are the same thing, isn't it? If that's your favorite at least you could get the name right, one would think... yeah, and there's that 4th Estate film, what was that called?
hamano	post #16  on March 14, 2005 - 7:06 AM PST   > On March 14, 2005 - 6:51 AM PST Eoliano wrote: > --------------------------------- > yeah, and there's that 4th Estate film, what was that called? > --------------------------------- Oh, that was the Truman Estate, right? Or was it The Last Show?
hamano	post #17  on March 14, 2005 - 7:13 AM PST   > On March 14, 2005 - 7:06 AM PST hamano wrote: > --------------------------------- > Or was it The Last Show? > --------------------------------- Speaking of which, what ever happened to that Bogdanovich guy? I liked him in Star 80, but has he done anything good since Dorothy Statton? Speaking of Bob Fosse, did he ever do anything as good as Star 80 or The Little Prince? Well, there was All That Jazz...
Eoliano	post #18  on March 14, 2005 - 8:02 AM PST   Hehehee! This thread has gotten ahead of me... > Don't you think that artists who die in their prime are lionized in our culture exactly BECAUSE we never get to see their "later, less interesting" works? That depends, it certainly holds true for artists like Jackson Pollack who bought it early and was lionized as much in life as in death. The same is true for Tarkovsky; he was practically beatified by cineastes and the art community shortly after Andrei Rublev hit the screen. And I can't imagine anyone losing any sleep over what their work would have been like had they lived longer. > I'd say Hannah and Her Sisters was Allen's last "great" film that had that measured mixture of poignancy and humor. Agreed... I liked his earlier funny movies, I mean, if he wants to do mankind a real service he should tell funnier jokes. ;- )
erostratus99	post #19  on March 14, 2005 - 8:20 AM PST   I don't agree that most good films involve a wizened loner, indeed most have nothing to do with stoicism or heroics, unless they are ostensibly "American" films. As to what makes a film good, I will leave to the individual viewer, although I feel there are several unstated universal criteria used in such determination. I still feel Eastwood is more near the prime of his directorial ability considering that most of his better films, although not to my personal taste, occurred between 1992 and 2004. What is to become of Clint? Who may tell as he may not have many years left to master his craft. dh22, I feel you may be on to something with your thoughts. Take Sartre for instance: after the release of "The Emotions", his enthusiasm for philosophical discourse seemed to wane in light of his failing health and mental prowess. His peak seemed to come directly after "Being and Nothingness" and the "Roads to Freedom" trilogy, especially noting the very public spat with Camus. Conversely, the writer, Samuel Beckett, appeared to not only strengthen in ability, but surpassed many of his more youthful works, especially in "Company", "The Unnamable", and "Malone Dies". And, Vonnegut admitting the inferiority of his work in his golden years is a wonderful testament to self-awareness and enlightenment through wisdom. Although, it really should be left to the critical eye of the audience to determine if a work is wothy of reverence or not. As for Bogdanovich: I think he is now writing film reviews (which was his former occupation before befriending the inimitable Cassavetes) as well as touring the art shows on NPR and PRI. I recently heard him on a local radio show (San Francisco) discussing his lack of interest in making another picture, but showing great enthusiasm for his new book, of which I know nothing. And what of those filmmakers who do continue to impress their audiences with sublime work throughout their lives? What creates this divergence from their peers? An example of a solid body of lifelong work comes from Carl Theodor Dryer. And, a filmmaker enamoured with Carl Th. Dreyer, is Lars von Trier, who seems to be in his own prime as we speak.
erostratus99	post #20  on March 14, 2005 - 8:29 AM PST   > On March 14, 2005 - 8:02 AM PST Eoliano wrote: > That depends, it certainly holds true for artists like Jackson Pollack who bought it early and was lionized as much in life as in death. The same is true for Tarkovsky; he was practically beatified by cineastes and the art community shortly after Andrei Rublev hit the screen. And I can't imagine anyone losing any sleep over what their work would have been like had they lived longer. ------------- A public myth of rough and raw American artist was partially created by the odious critic and proponent of modernism in painting, Clement Greenberg. Greenber worked quite hard to "manufacture" the image of Pollock, although Pollock had little difficulty in proving his ability to enthrall the American public. At the time of his prime, the United States, still high from World War II, was searching for a face for their nascent identity as purveyors of liberation, and Pollock's identity fit quite nicely! Here was an artist genuinely American, revered for his ingenuity and uniqueness. Nevertheless, underlying this was the propoganda of Greenberg, who was a man with a zeal for modernist idealism and a theoretical bent. Truly, I feel that if Greenberg had not endorsed Pollock, he may never have become the icon he is today. And, Tarkovsky has been "re-discovered" by a newer generation of film viewers, myself included, who have also beatified him and placed him upon an indelibe dais in the pantheon of cinema's great creators. I am still wistful, though, about his premature death.

page  1  2  3      prev | next