What makes a Director great??
I've been reading the thread about whether or not Quentin Tarantino
is a great director the last few days with keen interest as I know
this is exactly the type of subject I like to comment on, But before
I address Tarantino, or Pulp Fiction..... I want to first discuss
what makes a director great and what makes a great film.
I want to bring up the fact that it is not just a director that makes
good films. In Tarantino's case it is, among other things, his
producer Lawrence Bender. The producer's job is multi-fold. First of
all he is responsible - along with the director, and the
cinematographer and the set designer and the writer - for the film's
look. It is the producer who tries to get the film made before the
director in most cases & the producer hires the director to work for
him. So it is the producer who is firstly responsible for the success
of the film. But different producers may not successfully translate
to different directors. What would Pulp Fiction look like if Dino De
Laurentis was the producer, or Irwin Allen, or David O.
Selznick?? Would Spartacus have been the same film if Kirk Douglas
(who as producer) did not hire Stanley Kubrick to direct after
firing Anthony Mann , or if Russell Metty weren't the
cinematographer (Metty recieved an Oscar for this work).
Orson Welles collaborated with Russell Metty as the cinematographer
on Touch of Evil & it's hard to think that without that collaboration
that we would have that three & a half minute opening shot (( they
designed a continuous shot for the full length of a film magazine
right to the very last frame with impeccable timing))
That said let us focus on what makes a director great.
When I think of great directors I think of guys like Chaplin, John
Ford, Hitchcock, DW Griffith, Henry King, Wiliam Wyler, John Huston,
DeMille, Billy Wilder, Stanley Kramer, John Frankenheimer, Joshua
Logan, Spielberg, John Sturges, Howard Hawks, Kurasawa, Stanley
Kubrick, Robert Wise, David Lean, Fritz Lang etc. Why are these guys
great is the question.
Take William Wyler for instance and lets focus on Dead End (keep in
mind he made many top rank films like Ben Hur in 1959). Dead End is
one of my most favorite films. One of the things that makes the film
great though is the fact that every actor in the film gave a standout
performance. Not a single actor - not even the bit parts - gave a
below par performance in this film and most were way above the
quality found in most films. I think this is one of Bogart's best
roles and his acting in this one is only matched by a few films where
he displays such a great range. Some of his best films - like Maltese
Falcon - his character is actually quite shallow, but his ability in
this film is tops - as good as his role in African Queen. Also Claire
Trevor who was nominated for an Best Actress Oscar for this and let
us not forget Marjorie Main who gave the best filmed performance of
her entire career in just one short scene on the steps of the ghetto
apartment building where she lived and seeing her gangster son Bogart
who she hasn't seen in years. Plus Joel MaCrea, Sylvia Sydney etc.
But what do these great performances have to do with William Wyler?
The director guides his actors to get the performance that he wants
for the film he is making, and William Wyler got great performances
from his actors in Dead End, just as he did from Charlton Heston in
Ben Hur (and Jack Hawkins, Stephen Boyd, Cathy O'Donnell etc)
But what also makes William Wyler great is is body of great films and
the number of years that he proved he was great, not just the
strength of these two movies. These Three 1936 (he remade this in
1961 as the Children's Hour) , Dodsworth 1936, Wuthering Heights
1939, the Letter 1940, Mrs Miniver 1942, Best Years of OUr Lives
1946, Detective Story 1951, Roman Holiday 1953 and more. He released
19 films in 1927!! But his crowning achievement is that he is the
record holder for Oscar best director nominations at 12 and he won 3.
Also, starting with Dodsworth in 1936 he was nominated an
unprecedented 7 years in a row as best director. ((he was also a
nephew of Universal founder Carl Lamaelle)). He also directed a
documentary of the Memphis Belle in 1944, and the Memphis Belle of
1990 was produced by his daughter Catherine Wyler. and Wyler is
praised as the second best behind John Ford.
How about John Ford. This is the picture of a great director in every
sense. He made films for almost 60 years from 1917-1977and among
those movies are Covered Wagon 1930, Stagecoach 1939 Grapes of Wrath
1940, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon 1949, the Searchers 1956 and the Man
Who Shot Liberty Valance 1962. In between he made many many movies.
But he wasnt trying to make great movies, he was making "A movie" and
he was making it as best he could because that's how he did anything
he did. So in the process he made many great films. That's why John
Ford is one of the greatest directors of all time. Ford is recognized
as possibly the greatesT director of all time. He has 4 Oscars. ((One
filmed interview in the 1950's he was asked "When you made your first
film, what were you trying to acieve". His response.. "I was trying
to achieve < slowly he raises his cigar over his head> .. a check"))
so this is what helps me to determine - within my own mind - what
makes a great director. Which brings us to Tarantino. Do I think
Quentin is a great director ???? Well.... NO. But do I think he has
his "foot in the door".. Oh yes, that I do. He has made several films
that I have persoanlly found very enjoyable and that I watch every so
often. I watch Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill(s) and Pulp
Fiction each about once a year and while I obviously enjoy them, I
can't put them into a category of "great films", at least not yet,
only time will tell. I think Quentiin has not yet a made a movie that
is "great" in the sense of Dead End, Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, On
the Waterfront, Saving Private Ryan.. but I think if he makes enough
movies and he finds the right subject that he may yet make that great
film, but that also as long as he continues to make the movies that
people enjoy.. that he has the chance - and probably the likelihood -
that he will indeed become one of the great directors. However his
body of work is as yet too incomplete to elevate him to a status of
"greatness". He is what was once called, an "auteur" director and
Tarantino is a director in that vein. He is a modern auteur director
Concerning the poll results from IMDB.. this is what the news would
call "an un-scientific poll". In order for you to get a good idea of
what a top ten would look like you would need to represent every
segment of the population in a meaningful way. For instance you want
a group that would represent each age group that can be polled, like
if you polled 1000 people - that you had 100 people 10-19, 100
people 20-29, 100 people 30-39, 100 people 40-49 etc to 100 people
90-99 - and for good measure they should also be American born &
raised - presuming you're only representing American cinema. I am
totally in agreement when Sue Heim says the voters on IMDB are a
younger group and it is reflected in their voting activity & voting choices.
The test of time will determine Tarantino's place on the list of
greats and when comes the time that he makes a film worthy of
multiple Oscar wins, he will be much closer to that pinacle than he is today
Rich=============================
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
