Posted on 10/27/2011 9:24:22 PM PDT by traumer
Ridley Scott is an empty stylist who fills the frame with all sorts of lighting and design conceits that have no bearing on the material (Blade Runner was an exception - his style was ideal for the material).
If you think Spielberg is a hack what do you think of the opening battle in Gladiator where Ridley ripped off the ‘Saving Private Ryan’ opening?
John Carpenter uses the wide screen frame for seductive compositions that have a real sense of movement whereas Scott’s frame lies there like the disembodied pretty picture it is. He’s not a good storyteller. Gladiator was a dull rehash. Even Roger Ebert disliked it and he’s a sucker for that sort of thing. Legend was just plain old dull. All that ‘working class’ talk about Alien is surface dressing and just doesn’t go very far with the characters on the screen. They really don’t have much personality - even in a pulp context. The daytime soap thing in Aliens maybe right but its better than the complete lack of meaningful character interaction in Alien. The action scenes in Aliens are a model of mounting dread and tension - the last act of Aliens is a landmark of action filmmaking. The first half hour of Terminator 2 is also some kind of genius as far as that sort of thing goes. BTW you do know that the script of Alien was a reworking of the ‘Dark Star’ concept that O’Bannon did with Carpenter right?
What popcorn action films/film makers do you like then?
BTW Do you seriously think Spielberg has a dull visual imagination? LOL Even people who can’t stand his films don’t think that.
That's an assertion that has no more value than the rest of your assertions. It also shows that you really need to know more about film than what Roger Ebert says if you're going to talk in anything but common wisdom (Spielberg is great, Scott is just a visualist.)
If you think Spielberg is a hack what do you think of the opening battle in Gladiator where Ridley ripped off the ‘Saving Private Ryan’ opening?
I direct you to the action scenes in G.I. JANE before you accuse Scott of ripping off Spielberg.
John Carpenter uses the wide screen frame for seductive compositions that have a real sense of movement
Carpenter's imagery is as static as a 70's TV show.
whereas Scott’s frame lies there like the disembodied pretty picture it is.
Whose films have scripts that are better-regarded--John Carpenter or Ridley Scott? ALIEN is taught as a model of Walter Hill's blank-verse method. BLADE RUNNER is a model of telling stories with visuals, and instead of the silly assertion about it being just pictures, the final soliloquy by Rutger Hauer, who wrote some of it, is one of the most memorable of its time--please show me similar moments in the 70's and 80's films of Spielberg and Carpenter that are as well-known. THELMA AND LOUISE is a cultural milestone, whatever its value, and shows how a director can bring visual storytelling to 'talky' material. GLADIATOR was another Oscar-nominee. He has a refreshingly non-PC, non-wimpy approach to these genre films, unlike the sappiness of Cameron and Spielberg.
How many James Cameron movies are known for anything but their action scenes and sappy sentiments? How many Carpenter movies are known as anything but B-movie junkfood?
He’s not a good storyteller. Gladiator was a dull rehash.
You say it is, I say it isn't. See where your simple assertions without any supporting outside view gets us? It was so dull it was one of the biggest hits of the year and won Best Picture.
Even Roger Ebert disliked it and he’s a sucker for that sort of thing.
LOL! Roger Ebert thought DARK CITY was the best picture of its year!
Legend was just plain old dull.<.i>
Yes, and TRUE LIES, ALWAYS, VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED were awesome visual and dramatic triumphs. Again, you are in a pissy mood because I don't like what you do, and now you're bashing everything Scott does, but without any kind of point besides saying "You don't like what I like? Well I don't like what YOU like, so there!"
All that ‘working class’ talk about Alien is surface dressing and just doesn’t go very far with the characters on the screen. They really don’t have much personality - even in a pulp context.
Whatever, man. You can keep saying that, but all you're showing is that you either have no idea how ALIEN's characterizations have been massively influential, far, far more than any characters in the films of the directors you worship.
The daytime soap thing in Aliens maybe right but its better than the complete lack of meaningful character interaction in Alien.
Only to people who need syrupy, sappy soap opera types in their movies to hold their hands and tell them how to feel and react. Scott has a much more objective, "cool" approach to character that those who only know one kind of approach can't grasp. Look at THE DUELISTS--it's the perfect example of where he started, with Conrad's more literary approach--it's a good example of how a director can LEARN an approach to character. It's not a perfect film, of course, but it shows from the start he places characters in an environment so we can SEE the character elements, not be told them in Spielbergian gush.
The action scenes in Aliens are a model of mounting dread and tension - the last act of Aliens is a landmark of action filmmaking.
Movie review cliches are again merely assertions, man, they're not laws or rules. If you think those scenes are so great, look at them slowly, shot by shot, as I have in my film studies. There's a lot of flash and cutting, which is fine as far as it goes. But once again you use this term "model" as if using the oldest methods in the book prove one is a good director. There's nothing in ALIENS that hasn't been used on TV action shows forever--Cameron just had bigger sets and louder sound.
The first half hour of Terminator 2 is also some kind of genius as far as that sort of thing goes.<./i>
You're just asserting your opinion. Whatever.
BTW you do know that the script of Alien was a reworking of the ‘Dark Star’ concept that O’Bannon did with Carpenter right?
If you did your research instead of using commonly-held 'wisdom' for a 'gotcha!' you'd know O'Bannon wrote the script while Carpenter directed and contributed very little to the script (O'Bannon also acted, worked on the sets and effects--which Carpenter should have gotten a co-director credit for if things were fair, right?). The two have some common ideas--and?
You do know that ALIENS was a sequel to a Ridley Scott film, which Cameron called a 'perfect' movie, right? ;) What popcorn action films/film makers do you like then?
Carpenter is famous for his use of the ‘Scope frame. ‘Halloween’ is all about using screen space (and off-screen space) to generate suspense. A film like ‘Big Trouble in Little China’ has a wonderful sense of movement (even if the film itself isn't very good). I love Blade Runner but Scott obviously thinks it could have been better since he's been fiddling with it for decades (I actually think the 2007 version is the best). Jaws, Close Encounters and E.T. are a ever -present on the cultural collective memory as anything Scott has done. Jaws is a better suspense film than Alien and C.E. is a much more incisive view at first contact. E.T. is pure popular myth at this point.
Do you like Gladiator? I found it completely dull and devoid of character interest. It's a routine traversal of the Hero's Journey without adding anything new except that incoherent opening battle. It was the first truly mediocre film to win Best Picture in a long time. Crowe agreed to do the film based on the concept without seeing a script. It's a piece of hackwork pure and simple - popular success is no defense these days. ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ was even worse. Blindingly dull. Cameron is an action director so being known for that is just fine. His two earliest features are still omnipresent in the popular imagination (The Terminator, Aliens). ‘True Lies’ is good clean fun. I'd take it over Ridley’s “worst” films anyway.
I would take Walter Hill's best films over Scott any day. ‘The Warriors’ say where the stylization and abstraction is expressive and makes the material seem like the myth it was based on.
The Duellists looked like a series of wine commercials spliced together. Barry Lyndon it ain't (a film that also used period decor and emotional distance to establish theme and character - but did it brilliantly). I'm asserting my opinion with examples. That's all you can do. What TV shows had the sort of relentless build that Aliens had? I'm curious. Do you like George Miller? Say The Road Warrior. The chase at the end of that film is a masterpiece of point of view and stop/start motion.
My point about G.I. JANE isn’t that it’s good (it’s not) or that Spielberg imitated it (he couldn’t have). You asserted that Scott copied the opening of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, which I’ve been trying to figure out but came up empty—the scenes have nothing at all to do with each other, and are nothing at all alike. My point was that Scott’s imagery in GLADIATOR emerged from his own work in G.I. JANE including the skip-frame printing.
If you’re trying to say Spielberg invented any of the techniques used in SPR, you’re on a different planet from mine.
The rest of your post is just more of your assertions. You like something, I don’t, whatever.
I have explained my positions, and cited both critical and popular evidence outside of mere name-calling. You can keep calling Scott names, and you can keep asserting that Carpenter’s use of textbook imagery is significant. I’ve never seen a writer acclaimed for using nouns and verbs, but lazy popular critics who share your views toss that stuff in to seem knowledgeable. I don’t.
I remember citing critical opinion and you said that it didn’t matter what other people thought. Gladiator contained nothing new and had no sign of a personal vision. It was cliche-addled as was American Gangster to take two of his most ‘enduring’ films apart from Alien and BR. That was my point about Ridley Scott...that his images don’t communicate anything but a design aesthetic. As opposed to say John Ford who uses the sunset or the horizon to suggest the passing of a way of life.
I bring it up because YOU are the one who brought Ebert and the regard in which E.T. is held.
Gladiator contained nothing new and had no sign of a personal vision. It was cliche-addled
If you can show me another gladiator movie with that look, with a score based on Viennes waltzes, with that level of screenwriting, with such rich visuals, such good acting, excellent art direction, go right ahead.
You keep focusing on GLADIATOR for some reason. I think it's a good popcorn movie, that's it. I don't know how this became about GLADIATOR, except that you brought it in to claim Scott somehow ripped off the awful, smarmy SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, which I have demonstrated is drawn visually from Scott's own previously-exhibited use of the methods he used there.
as was American Gangster to take two of his most ‘enduring’ films apart from Alien and BR.
Scott challenges himself by going into different areas, unlike Carpenter and Cameron and Spielberg, who in Spielberg's case may go into different genres but can't shake his childishness. I don't know why of all his films you've now chosen AMERICAN GANGSTER, except that you just have to bash Scott because I don't like your pet directors.
That was my point about Ridley Scott...that his images don’t communicate anything but a design aesthetic.
You keep saying that. I keep pointing out examples of how that is demonstrably false, which you ignore, and then you say it again. I get it--you can't understand visual storytelling that isn't based on low-angle = Bad Guy basics. I get it. Move on.
,i> As opposed to say John Ford who uses the sunset or the horizon to suggest the passing of a way of life.
Carpenter, Spielberg and Cameron can't live up to that standard, yet you use that as a means to bash Scott.
You're just arguing to argue, and I have now posted responses to every point you've made. Instead of then responding to those answers, you just change the subject--now we're on AMERICAN GANGSTER, which I've never mentioned as proof of anything.
I'm sorry I think those three directors are boring, bland and empty. But my standards are a lot higher than that. Sorry that seems to bother you. But you can deny his talents, achievements and massive influence on filmmaking all you like, all it comes across as is irritation that someone doesn't make bland, boring, empty TV-mindset junk. Your basic point--that he is a 'boring pictorialist'--is a cliche easily brushed aside by the fact that he began as a commercial maker, and his own company has made some of the landmark commercials which are nothing BUT communication. His 1984 commercial has more visual storytelling than all of Carpenter; his ALIEN is a bigger influence than all of Cameron; his BLADE RUNNER has more adult handling of the issue of what makes one human than all of Spielberg. That's how I see it. You don't. I get it. Repeating your hate of GLADIATOR again isn't going to change my mind. Pointing out the boring, plain, unexciting, TV-inspired (it bears repeating that Spielberg has said himself he was into TV more than moviegoing) cotton candy isn't going to convince you that these three are any less than great. So I think we're done. At least I am.
Languages change, it’s what they do, anybody that doesn’t like it should stick with the dead languages, they don’t change because nobody uses them.
You hit the nail on the head.
Language has to get out there and boogie with the people, not just the academics who get to decide what is ‘protected speech’ so to speak.
And everybody using a browser to go to this site to read the article on their flat screen and maybe use the mouse to find the comment link should be glad. 20 years ago that sentence makes no sense at all, now it’s how most of us kill time at work.
Language changes when it brings in new words not just randomly doing away with grammar and diction because it’s not convenient.
That’s a Borsch Belt idea of ‘High Falutin’ Talk’. Sort of a poor man’s ‘The Lion in Winter’.
Actually language changes include randomly doing away with grammar and diction because society doesn’t like it anymore. And you of all people should know that, you read old books, you know how much basic grammar and diction changed between the times of Mary Shelley and James Joyce. There’s two constant forces that work on a language, one is the group of people whose primary use of language is to impress, the other is the group who are just trying to get a point across. The first group makes language larger and slower, the second makes it faster and easier. Which group is on top in any given time frame determines how the language is evolving, it’s either getting more flowery or more contractions. That is the normal evolution of language and you’ve done the reading to already know that.
Joyce used his own form of grammar for artistic effect so that’s not a good comparison. I’m talking about standardized English not literary English. There has to be a set of standards agreed upon.
Do you know that the word ‘irony’ has basically been stripped of its meaning by the lazy who insist on using it to describe just about any commingling of events whether Ironic or not? It’s become a synonym of coincidence. English teachers are conceding that the word can’t be limited to its original definition any more. It’s awful.
and I’m not talking about “flowery language”. Languages simplify as they get older. I’m talking about basic sentence structure like “I am going to the store.” I have friends who teach English at the college level and kids coming out of high school can literally not put a sentence together, much less a paragraph.
All forms of English change constantly, it’s always been that way it always will be.
Words change their meaning. Again it’s a constant thing. Eventually the connotation of a word takes over and replaces its denotation. It’s not awful, it’s standard. It’s what happens when language leaves the ivory tower and gets used.
I’m talking about basic sentence structure too. I would never say “I am going to the store” because I’m part of the generation that fully embraced contractions, which also for whatever reason has found a million ways to say “go” without it being “go”. I’d say “I’m hitting the store on the way home, want anything?” notice there’s an evaporated “you” in there too.
It’s how language has always and will always evolve. Complaining about that is like complaining about the existence of weather. It’s unavoidable, it will exist, and whining about it just shows the world you’re a crabby old man.
I wasn’t talking about contractions. I’m using them in this post and use them all the time. Language without contractions was used for comic effect in the novel/Coen brothers film True Grit. You can use informal language in speech all the time. I’m talking about when it bleeds into written/standard use...when kids start writing term papers that way.
There was a movement in the 1980s to make the word “Like” a verb helper. As in “Like totally man can we like do this thing right?” It failed because it was a stupid idea and while people still use the word that way is it NOT correct English and would be marked wrong on a test. The word Irony defines a precise occurrence and watering it down is a bad idea and would invite the need for MORE language to explain what you’re talking about. If a student does that they should be marked down on an English test...and saying “everyone’s doing it” is not an excuse.
One of the most common errors in writing these days (even in College) is using ‘would of’ and ‘should of’ in the place of would’ve’ or ‘should’ve’. Do you think that’s OK?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.