|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Has Shyamalan DEFIED or DEFINED Convention?
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 07-12-2006 10:13 PM
I don't think that the commercialism of a filmmaker detracts from their status as an auteur. The point of using a filmmaker's name to sell a movie is to give the audience an idea of what they will be seeing based on that filmmaker's previous work. It's almost as if the marketing is validating the auteur theory. That's not the filmmakers' fault. Besides, Hitchcock was used in marketing way before any of these modern people, and the films which probably pimp their directors more than any others these days are art films.
Regardless of his talent, Shyamalan is certainly an auteur. His movies carry a very distinct style, which is actually his biggest problem. He knocked everyone on their ass with THE SIXTH SENSE, then went a bit further with UNBREAKABLE, which is a near masterpiece. But no one gave that movie the credit it deserved, so he went right back to the SIXTH SENSE formula, and has been wallowing in mediocrity ever since.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 07-13-2006 05:15 PM
quote: Mike Schindler
I don't think that the commercialism of a filmmaker detracts from their status as an auteur. The point of using a filmmaker's name to sell a movie is to give the audience an idea of what they will be seeing based on that filmmaker's previous work.
I agree that it doesn't necessarily detract from their status - good, bad and indifferent directors have all been commercialised. I was just trying to point out that the word 'auteur' is a problematic one which has come to mean different things to different people.
It struck me while thinking about this that of the very few directors who established reputations in their own right before the '50s and the wave of writers and non-mainstream filmmakers who popularised the idea of authorship in film, their careers all ended up suffering to some degree. A few examples off the top of my head: Erich von Stroheim was hounded out of Hollywood by Irving Thalberg and ended his days playing supporting roles. Fritz Lang never achieved the status in Hollywood which he enjoyed in Germany (though, ironically, he became a hero of the French critics, and even appeared in one of Godard's films, Le Mepris). Hitchcock left Britain largely because the British studio bosses were uncomfortable with his celebrity status (one of whom publicly accused him of having 'gone with the wind up' to Hollywood at the outbreak of WWII): and although his career didn't suffer as much as Lang's, it was 15 years before he really got that celebrity status back again. Even after he did so, he was an exception which proved what was then the rule.
I'd still argue that the systematic promotion of directors as stars in their own right within mainstream Hollywood is essentially a recent phenomenon, dating from the last 15-20 years or so; though admittedly that's more from personal impression than any systematic research. I still think it's interesting to compare what the term 'auteur' was originally meant to mean with what it's actually come to mean, though.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 07-20-2006 01:18 PM
I saw the movie last night. It's actually all about defying convention. But at the same time, it's extremely conventional. However, it still works, because it's a comedy. More specifically, it's a satire of the conventions which Shyamalan himself defined. There are times during SIGNS and THE VILLAGE where you just have to laugh at the ham and cheese of it all. With LADY IN THE WATER, it's like Shyamalan is saying, "Yeah, I know..." But on the flip side, he hasn't learned from his mistakes.
Back when I was in that lovely soul-sucking institution known as "Film School," there was a guy in one of my classes who was making a movie that I somehow got scammed into shooting. We were shooting a scene of a woman walking up some stairs. The whole reason for the scene's existence was to get this woman from point A to point B. If I were editing the movie, this scene would not have survived the first cut. Such was the pointlessness of this scene. So anyway, just before we started shooting, the director turns to me and says, "I want to shoot this in slow motion." I just kind of looked at him for a few seconds, stunned more than anything else, and asked him why. "I don't know. Because it's cool."
This is what I like to call the Film-School Bullshit Aesthetic. And in that setting, it's fine. This movie was a learning experience, and this guy had never shot anything in slow motion before, so who cares? But Shyamalan has embraced the Film-School Bullshit Aesthetic and taken it to a new level over the course of his career. And I'm wondering why none of his very talented collaboraters have ever called him on it. The job of any good DP or editor or producer is to tell the director when he's gone off the deep end, and pull him back. It's almost like with Shyamalan, they encourage his insanity. Crazy stuff.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anslem Rayburn
Master Film Handler
Posts: 476
From: Yuma, AZ, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-25-2006 06:51 AM
quote: Dave Williams
There are two types of people... Those that love Shamalam's movies EXCEPT for Unbreakable, and those that love Unbreakable but think the rest of his crap is just that.
I am totally in the first camp. I dislike "Unbreakble". I think it's very formulaic (as are his other films), and boring. At least his other films (haven't seen "Lady in the Water" yet) are interesting. I, too, knew the 'twist' in 6th Sense. It didn't take away from the pacing and character development, however. I have never really been surprised by any of his films, but Unbreakable was most predictable and drab. My favorite of his is "Signs", but that was more for the great acting turned in by the cast than for anything he did as a director. I also like Kevin Smith movies, so take it for what it's worth1 ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif) ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
For what it's worth, I think that "Stir of Echoes" was a far superior supernatural-type film that was overshadowed by the huge success of "Sixth Sense". If you haven't seen it, I suggest viewing it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic