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.