8 ms·

It’s about the idea of community, what we can achieve together, as opposed to this cult of individuality that we live in right now. Whether you’re talking about

It’s about the idea of community, what we can achieve together, as opposed to this cult of individuality that we live in right now. Whether you’re talking about Silicon Valley billionaires or politicians, I think we’re living in an era that over-prizes individuality at the expense of community. This seems terribly relevant. And it's interesting coming from a director - the leader of creative communities behind the camera while commercial success often depends on the individual standing in front of it.

npsimons 9y ago
> And it's interesting coming from a director It's incredibly interesting to me, coming from this director, as I class him as one of the best, up there with Kubrick, and I also will discriminate on movies based on directors and screenwriters more than any other factor, because that's how I have found quality.
- mikepurvis 9y ago
  A good director has a chance to salvage bad everything else— no one else does. Stars with good taste can be a signal (think Tom Hanks), but that's a measure of potential rather than the final product— once they're on board, they don't really control that much beyond their own performance.
  - mrec 9y ago
    I can't think of any case where a good director has made a good movie out of a bad screenplay. At best they can distract you with style and spectacle, e.g. Gladiator.
    - Retric 9y ago
      If I wanted quality, I would read a book; movies are all about style and spectacle.
    - mikepurvis 9y ago
      I can't supply a specific example, but I'm thinking of writer/director types like Joss Whedon, JJ Abrams, Bryan Singer, who are able to understand the larger story elements and at least work within the individual scenes to excise the worst dialogue, give characters meaningful and believable motivations, etc.
      - aaron-lebo 9y ago
        Commercially successful but mediocre. Dialog in X-Men is still widely mocked (Whedon and Singer), X-Men 3 was horrible, Abrams has never made a great movie (getting the Trek and Wars franchises is a lot of help). I find very little about what Whedon writes believable (maybe that's why he does superhero movies). It's all lowest common denominator snark so they can make a billion dollars. Not sure why am going after you on this, but surely there are better examples than those guys.
        npsimons 9y ago
        > Not sure why am going after you on this, but surely there are better examples than those guys. If it makes you feel any better, I'm with you on this. A single line from "Avengers" really sticks out to me, and it seems all too Whedonesque: > "What were you lying?" I can understand that Whedon was going for a cutesy play on "what were you saying?", but it just feels so clunky. And it's delivered by a fairly widely recognized as at least competent thespian. This, and the fact that Whedon wrote the screenplay for "Alien: Resurrection" tells me that Whedon is not world-class. He's certainly very good, and definitely mainstream successful, but not in the same class as Kubrick, or even Nolan. Abrams also feels to me like a one hit wonder, relying far too much on his "mystery box." I actually liked most of "Lost", and his Star Wars and Star Trek were entertaining enough popcorn flicks, but not really memorable.
        mrec 9y ago
        > the fact that Whedon wrote the screenplay for "Alien: Resurrection" tells me that Whedon is not world-class I think that's a bit unfair. Joss wrote the original screenplay, but it was butchered en route to the screen. He's still pretty narked about having a story credit: "There is always going to be a shitty Alien movie out there. A shitty Alien movie with my name on it." I liked the original Avengers, and I think it did a great job handling a sprawling and convoluted brief (there's a 17-part breakdown out there if you're really keen [1]), but TV was his natural medium. Firefly, obviously, but there are moments in Buffy that I'd honestly defend as the best TV ever made. Not going to argue about JJ Abrams, though. Possibly the most overrated director ever, with a perfect reverse-Midas track record when it comes to franchises. [1] http://www.toddalcott.com/the-avengers-part-1.html http://www.toddalcott.com/the-avengers-part-1.html
  - sandworm101 9y ago
    I lost all respect for Tom Hanks when he became the history channel's boy: Nostalga and ww2 fantasy plays are not my thing. Bring back the Tom Hanks of Joe v the volcano, not melodrama about another captain america.
- Helmet 9y ago
  This I disagree with. There is a sort of Nolan cult, which I think is undeserved. He is a fine film-maker, but his dialogue is often stilted, the scores overstated and the characters under-developed - and while he is a decent cinematographer, his pictures aren't something that he will be remembered for. His films are good and incredibly entertaining, but Kubrick is on a completely different plane.
  - jsmthrowaway 9y ago
    I suppose I'm in the cult. About the only complaint I can lodge against Nolan is that the exposition is heavy handed in a few of his films, which he spoke to in the article, and I agree he was forced into that position with the intense story he's often trying to communicate in a film's runtime. He's also not a cinematographer, and has generally worked with Wally Pfister or Hoyte van Hoytema. I would disagree if you're saying the cinematography won't be remembered; van Hoytema's work on Interstellar and Dunkirk is something I remember quite positively even while typing this comment. I would also disagree on character development, as Nolan directed Robin Williams into one hell of an antagonist in Insomnia, a spectacularly underrated film.
    - aaron-lebo 9y ago
      His stories are often lazy, too. The notion of a magic machine that lets everyone wifi and have dreams inside dreams inside dreams together is fun but absurd. The same with the end of Interstellar. Too conveniently we've got a magic wormhole which saves him and drops him a few feet away from a ship around the ring of Saturn. The first half of TDK is incredible, the second is very anti-climatic (maybe not his fault). Check out anything by Roger Deakins for world class cinematography. Nolan is just good. If you are looking for a director who people might one day consider in the realm of Kubrick, Paul Thomas Anderson might fit it, but he's got a lot of "weird" movies (even his masterpieces) which don't give him the same wide appeal. [0] Williams was great in just about anything he was ever in, I wouldn't attribute that to Nolan. The greatest directors elevate their actors (see the crazy stories about Kubrick and The Shining). Nolan works with great talent, but the performances often leave a lot to be desired, this is uncontested even by fans. Nolan makes movies with interesting themes and he never really does anything bad. But for him to be even be discussed in the same thread as Kubrick shows how overrated he is. I say this owning Interstellar (the teaser gives me chills) and I thought Dunkirk was great simply because he toned it down and worked within something realistic. Given 20 years and a Jurassic Park, we might see Nolan the same way we do Spielberg today, but Kubrick? Forget about it! https://www.theringer.com/movies/2017/12/22/16809404/there-will-be-blood-paul-thomas-anderson-10-years-daniel-day-lewis https://www.theringer.com/movies/2017/12/22/16809404/there-w...
jsmthrowaway 9y ago
Doubly interesting given that Nolan is one of the premier auteurs of our time. I wouldn't have expected him to say that.
- npsimons 9y ago
  > Nolan is one of the premier auteurs of our time Auteur - that was the word I was looking for. It's interesting how people deride the auteur concept (including Nolan!), but "auteurship" is exactly how I have found many movies I love: I'll take a chance on something I know nothing about, and if it's really good, I go looking for other movies by the same director or screenwriter. Similarly, I skip anything by Michael Bay or McG. I've not oft been disappointed with this process.
valuearb 9y ago
This is a meaningless and inaccurate observation. US government spending has been at all time sustained highs (excluding WW2) as a percentage of GDP, about 50% higher than the decades pre Sep 11. We’ve silently been asking for more contributions and han is very, whether thru taxes or future debt to be foisted on your children. A truer statement is that the last 90 years we’ve steadily diminished the value of the individual.
- padobson 9y ago
  On a practical basis (civil liberties, economic freedom, power to affect change), I agree with you. But it's hard to ignore the deification of certain individuals through celebrity. If some of society's foundational institutions are failing, it's fair to suggest the deification of power brokers as a root cause.

npsimons 9y ago

> And it's interesting coming from a director It's incredibly interesting to me, coming from this director, as I class him as one of the best, up there with Kubrick, and I also will discriminate on movies based on directors and screenwriters more than any other factor, because that's how I have found quality.

mikepurvis 9y ago
A good director has a chance to salvage bad everything else— no one else does. Stars with good taste can be a signal (think Tom Hanks), but that's a measure of potential rather than the final product— once they're on board, they don't really control that much beyond their own performance.
- mrec 9y ago
  I can't think of any case where a good director has made a good movie out of a bad screenplay. At best they can distract you with style and spectacle, e.g. Gladiator.
  - Retric 9y ago
    If I wanted quality, I would read a book; movies are all about style and spectacle.
  - mikepurvis 9y ago
    I can't supply a specific example, but I'm thinking of writer/director types like Joss Whedon, JJ Abrams, Bryan Singer, who are able to understand the larger story elements and at least work within the individual scenes to excise the worst dialogue, give characters meaningful and believable motivations, etc.
    - aaron-lebo 9y ago
      Commercially successful but mediocre. Dialog in X-Men is still widely mocked (Whedon and Singer), X-Men 3 was horrible, Abrams has never made a great movie (getting the Trek and Wars franchises is a lot of help). I find very little about what Whedon writes believable (maybe that's why he does superhero movies). It's all lowest common denominator snark so they can make a billion dollars. Not sure why am going after you on this, but surely there are better examples than those guys.
      - npsimons 9y ago
        > Not sure why am going after you on this, but surely there are better examples than those guys. If it makes you feel any better, I'm with you on this. A single line from "Avengers" really sticks out to me, and it seems all too Whedonesque: > "What were you lying?" I can understand that Whedon was going for a cutesy play on "what were you saying?", but it just feels so clunky. And it's delivered by a fairly widely recognized as at least competent thespian. This, and the fact that Whedon wrote the screenplay for "Alien: Resurrection" tells me that Whedon is not world-class. He's certainly very good, and definitely mainstream successful, but not in the same class as Kubrick, or even Nolan. Abrams also feels to me like a one hit wonder, relying far too much on his "mystery box." I actually liked most of "Lost", and his Star Wars and Star Trek were entertaining enough popcorn flicks, but not really memorable.
        mrec 9y ago
        > the fact that Whedon wrote the screenplay for "Alien: Resurrection" tells me that Whedon is not world-class I think that's a bit unfair. Joss wrote the original screenplay, but it was butchered en route to the screen. He's still pretty narked about having a story credit: "There is always going to be a shitty Alien movie out there. A shitty Alien movie with my name on it." I liked the original Avengers, and I think it did a great job handling a sprawling and convoluted brief (there's a 17-part breakdown out there if you're really keen [1]), but TV was his natural medium. Firefly, obviously, but there are moments in Buffy that I'd honestly defend as the best TV ever made. Not going to argue about JJ Abrams, though. Possibly the most overrated director ever, with a perfect reverse-Midas track record when it comes to franchises. [1] http://www.toddalcott.com/the-avengers-part-1.html http://www.toddalcott.com/the-avengers-part-1.html
- sandworm101 9y ago
  I lost all respect for Tom Hanks when he became the history channel's boy: Nostalga and ww2 fantasy plays are not my thing. Bring back the Tom Hanks of Joe v the volcano, not melodrama about another captain america.
Helmet 9y ago
This I disagree with. There is a sort of Nolan cult, which I think is undeserved. He is a fine film-maker, but his dialogue is often stilted, the scores overstated and the characters under-developed - and while he is a decent cinematographer, his pictures aren't something that he will be remembered for. His films are good and incredibly entertaining, but Kubrick is on a completely different plane.
- jsmthrowaway 9y ago
  I suppose I'm in the cult. About the only complaint I can lodge against Nolan is that the exposition is heavy handed in a few of his films, which he spoke to in the article, and I agree he was forced into that position with the intense story he's often trying to communicate in a film's runtime. He's also not a cinematographer, and has generally worked with Wally Pfister or Hoyte van Hoytema. I would disagree if you're saying the cinematography won't be remembered; van Hoytema's work on Interstellar and Dunkirk is something I remember quite positively even while typing this comment. I would also disagree on character development, as Nolan directed Robin Williams into one hell of an antagonist in Insomnia, a spectacularly underrated film.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    His stories are often lazy, too. The notion of a magic machine that lets everyone wifi and have dreams inside dreams inside dreams together is fun but absurd. The same with the end of Interstellar. Too conveniently we've got a magic wormhole which saves him and drops him a few feet away from a ship around the ring of Saturn. The first half of TDK is incredible, the second is very anti-climatic (maybe not his fault). Check out anything by Roger Deakins for world class cinematography. Nolan is just good. If you are looking for a director who people might one day consider in the realm of Kubrick, Paul Thomas Anderson might fit it, but he's got a lot of "weird" movies (even his masterpieces) which don't give him the same wide appeal. [0] Williams was great in just about anything he was ever in, I wouldn't attribute that to Nolan. The greatest directors elevate their actors (see the crazy stories about Kubrick and The Shining). Nolan works with great talent, but the performances often leave a lot to be desired, this is uncontested even by fans. Nolan makes movies with interesting themes and he never really does anything bad. But for him to be even be discussed in the same thread as Kubrick shows how overrated he is. I say this owning Interstellar (the teaser gives me chills) and I thought Dunkirk was great simply because he toned it down and worked within something realistic. Given 20 years and a Jurassic Park, we might see Nolan the same way we do Spielberg today, but Kubrick? Forget about it! https://www.theringer.com/movies/2017/12/22/16809404/there-will-be-blood-paul-thomas-anderson-10-years-daniel-day-lewis https://www.theringer.com/movies/2017/12/22/16809404/there-w...

jsmthrowaway 9y ago

Doubly interesting given that Nolan is one of the premier auteurs of our time. I wouldn't have expected him to say that.

npsimons 9y ago
> Nolan is one of the premier auteurs of our time Auteur - that was the word I was looking for. It's interesting how people deride the auteur concept (including Nolan!), but "auteurship" is exactly how I have found many movies I love: I'll take a chance on something I know nothing about, and if it's really good, I go looking for other movies by the same director or screenwriter. Similarly, I skip anything by Michael Bay or McG. I've not oft been disappointed with this process.

valuearb 9y ago

This is a meaningless and inaccurate observation. US government spending has been at all time sustained highs (excluding WW2) as a percentage of GDP, about 50% higher than the decades pre Sep 11. We’ve silently been asking for more contributions and han is very, whether thru taxes or future debt to be foisted on your children. A truer statement is that the last 90 years we’ve steadily diminished the value of the individual.

padobson 9y ago
On a practical basis (civil liberties, economic freedom, power to affect change), I agree with you. But it's hard to ignore the deification of certain individuals through celebrity. If some of society's foundational institutions are failing, it's fair to suggest the deification of power brokers as a root cause.