Boldest directors in film making?

[Jack O Lantern]

It's impossible to tell.

A director like Gronenberg may be fretting over what critics or a particular kind of audience, whereas Michael Bay can be all about blowing **** up and **** what anyone says.

And even though Gronenberg may be the far superior film-making who creates artistic genius rather than MTV trash, if the above example were true, Bay would be the bolder of the two.

What I'm getting at is that unless your privy to the thoughts of a director you can't tell who is all for their art and who isn't.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Yeah, I agree, it's not a better film. I thought Red Line sort of shot itself in the foot by contrasting the savagery of man against the "innocence" of nature. I mean, nature is far more brutal and merciless than man, but not in Malick's world, where a bird with a broken wing is as bad as it gets. Heck, even his portrayal of the idyllic natives was inane. Native wars have, historically speaking, but equally as horrific.

Saving Private Ryan hit its intended targets (pardon the pun) and transported me into WWII, with all the horror, humanity and frustration intact.

What's interesting is that Gene Siskel and Scorsese both adored the film due to its unconventional narrative and halcyon cinematography which are probably the main reasons why most audiences would hate it. Or at least be bored by it. I guess there is really a certain level of disconnect between critics/directors and the general population of movie goers.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

It's impossible to tell.

A director like Gronenberg may be fretting over what critics or a particular kind of audience, whereas Michael Bay can be all about blowing **** up and **** what anyone says.

And even though Gronenberg may be the far superior film-making who creates artistic genius rather than MTV trash, if the above example were true, Bay would be the bolder of the two.

What I'm getting at is that unless your privy to the thoughts of a director you can't tell who is all for their art and who isn't.

But has Michael Bay ever written a film that's intellectually challenging or subversive? No. Therefore he is compromising and he doesn't qualify as being bold. Just self absorbed.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

But has Michael Bay ever written a film that's intellectually challenging or subversive? No. Therefore he is compromising and he doesn't qualify as being bold. Just self absorbed.

What if he has and it's called Bad Boys?

I don't mean that Bad Boys is intellectually challenging or subversive? But maybe that's as deep as he can go and he was trying his best. Maybe a History of Violence is Gronenberg phoning it in.

What my basic point is. You can judge the quality of a film, the depth of a film. You can judge anything relaating to the finish product.

But the intent of the director can't be judged because talent and intelligence come into it. Because talent and intelligence lead into imagination. And someone may push the boundaries to the point their imaginations allows them, but the limitations of that imagineation may only be Bad Boys. Whereas another director may push boundaries because he as an infinite imagination but stops it before breaking point because he doesn't want to go too far.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

What if he has and it's called Bad Boys?

I don't mean that Bad Boys is intellectually challenging or subversive? But maybe that's as deep as he can go and he was trying his best. Maybe a History of Violence is Gronenberg phoning it in.

What my basic point is. You can judge the quality of a film, the depth of a film. You can judge anything relaating to the finish product.

But the intent of the director can't be judged because talent and intelligence come into it. Because talent and intelligence lead into imagination. And someone may push the boundaries to the point their imaginations allows them, but the limitations of that imagineation may only be Bad Boys. Whereas another director may push boundaries because he as an infinite imagination but stops it before breaking point because he doesn't want to go too far.

If the director is even somewhat competent, his or her intent should be made entirely clear. That's basically the point of directing a movie. If Michael Bay thought Bad Boys was challenging or subversive even though it was blatantly shallow and unremarkable, he'd be half insane.

Some truly great directors can get away with murkiness, but that's a very select few.

 

[gwynplaine]

Jacques Audiard. One of France's greatest film makers right now. (He just won the Jury prize at Cannes and he deserves it).
Federico Fellini.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

If the director is even somewhat competent, his or her intent should be made entirely clear. That's basically the point of directing a movie. If Michael Bay thought Bad Boys was challenging or subversive even though it was blatantly shallow and unremarkable, he'd be half insane.

Some truly great directors can get away with murkiness, but that's a very select few.

Yes but what if tried his best, what if he tried to make the indentity swap deep but just wasn't good enough?

A better example is probably a short film director. How many bad short films have you seen that ends in someone committing suicde? Probably in the high 90%. That's a director with a limited imagination and limited talent trying to be deep. But that is still boldness because they are trying to push the enevelope.

It's like bravery. What's more brave? A firefighter who believes he's invincible running into a burning building to save a small child or someone afraid of heights peering over the Empire State building?

There's no doubt that the former is the more important of the the two acts and should be celebrated as such, but he wasn't brave because he wasn't afarid, the latter was.

 

[Space Moose]

Terence Malick is the greatest American film maker alive today. End of story.

 

[Doctor Jones]

If I were you I would start with Twin Peaks actually. Then Blue Velvet, then Wild at Heart. The ones that you absolutely, without question have to see are Mulholland Dr. and Eraserhead. INLAND EMPIRE and Lost Highway are basically for diehards only. I liked INLAND EMPIRE but its a long three hours and at times can be a little frustrating. Lost Highway you can basically skip. Watch Fire Walk With Me after you're finished with the Twin Peaks series.

It may seem like a lot of watching, but compared to some other, more prolific directors (Allen, Bergman, Herzog, Godard, etc.) its really not so bad.

Also, Cronenberg is a pretty good choice. His early work is basically a thumb to the eye of the casual movie goer, which is cool.

I'm interested in Elephant Man because of Hurt's performance mostly. PLus I want to expose myself to some more unconventional filmmaking. Something that will challenge me but weird me out at the same time.

Twin Peaks is a series and a film? Hmm. Mullholland Drive is the one with Naomi Watts right? I remember my mom telling me it's a great film. I've only seen uh... a certain scene between Watts and the other chick.

Videodrome and Scanners I'm interested in as well. I've only seen The Fly from Cronenberg.

I want to start with Rescue Dawn as my first Herzog film. Hell, some of the films you mentioned I don't even think they carry in my area.

But all your suggestions sound interesting. Thanks.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Would it be safe to say George Lucas back in 1977? I realize he found inspiration out of Kirowsawa and the old serials and westerns, but back in '77 when an industry was losing it's touch with younger filmgoers, here comes a man with this shear vision. Something a film like that would only make 10 million or so. The execs thought he was crazy only Ladd Jr. backing him up at Fox, but here comes George just sticking with this vision of a space opera that no one has ever seen before that could appeal to everyone.

 

[The Dark Defender]

And in regards to Mel Gibson, I'd agree that Apocalypto was a pretty ballsy endeavor (doing a film where the characters speak entirely in ancient Mayan is no small feat) but The Passion of the Christ was just two hours of Jim Caveizel getting his ass kicked. Pretty cheap stuff.

A very shortsighted view to say the least; it was a completely uncompromising look at the most crucial part of the story that had been either glossed over or ignored in every other on-screen telling...it showed the moral dilemmas involved, it showed the most palpable look at temptation I've seen in a film, the most demanding performance I've ever seen from an actor, and a director funding a film that he made exactly the way he wanted to make it without any help from mainstream Hollywood knowing full well the vehement backlash he was going to get for it; it's easily one of the boldest films I've ever seen.
If you ignore everything about why the violence was happening and why the film was made as it was, then it's "just a guy getting his ass kicked." Love it or hate it, it drastically increased interest in the material and the vision behind it was anything but cheap.

 

[Sawyer]

Anyone said Spike Jonze? Cause Where the Wild Things Are looks pretty ****ing bold for what could've easily been turned into any sort of lame "kids movie" Disney is spewing out these days.

 

[gwynplaine]

And in regards to Mel Gibson, I'd agree that Apocalypto was a pretty ballsy endeavor (doing a film where the characters speak entirely in ancient Mayan is no small feat) but The Passion of the Christ was just two hours of Jim Caveizel getting his ass kicked. Pretty cheap stuff.

Apocalypto was pretty awesome and Passion was really powerful too imo (I'm an atheist btw). I wish mel gibson would not only star in but also direct Mad Max 4, that would seriously make my day.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

A very shortsighted view to say the least; it was a completely uncompromising look at the most crucial part of the story that had been either glossed over or ignored in every other on-screen telling...it showed the moral dilemmas involved, it showed the most palpable look at temptation I've seen in a film, the most demanding performance I've ever seen from an actor, and a director funding a film that he made exactly the way he wanted to make it without any help from mainstream Hollywood knowing full well the vehement backlash he was going to get for it; it's easily one of the boldest films I've ever seen.
If you ignore everything about why the violence was happening and why the film was made as it was, then it's "just a guy getting his ass kicked." Love it or hate it, it drastically increased interest in the material and the vision behind it was anything but cheap.

I dunno, the ballsiest, most interesting look at moral dilemmas and temptation in regards to the passion is certainly The Last Temptation of Christ, which has oodles more spiritual and intellectual complexity than Passion does.

 

[Gilpesh]

I liked INLAND EMPIRE but its a long three hours and at times can be a little frustrating.

Those bunnies wouldn't answer the damn phone!

Also, Cronenberg is a pretty good choice. His early work is basically a thumb to the eye of the casual movie goer, which is cool.

Thumb in the eye? It was definitely something else in the eye. Just look at Rabid.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Those bunnies wouldn't answer the damn phone!

One day I decided to watch the full series which was included in the Lynch box set. All 8 episodes of those damn bunnies. They end up getting attacked by a demon in the stairs. Or something. So yeah.

Thumb in the eye? It was definitely something else in the eye. Just look at Rabid.

Showing "Rabid" to young boys will cause them to fear women's armpits forever.

 

[Gilpesh]

One day I decided to watch the full series which was included in the Lynch box set. All 8 episodes of those damn bunnies. They end up getting attacked by a demon in the stairs. Or something. So yeah.

Yeah. My friend that was a huge Lynch fan tried to get me to watch that series. I declined.

The only series from Lynch that I have seen is Dumbland.

Showing "Rabid" to young boys will cause them to fear women's armpits forever.

I don't wanna be no zombie!

 

[The Dark Defender]

I dunno, the ballsiest, most interesting look at moral dilemmas and temptation in regards to the passion is certainly The Last Temptation of Christ, which has oodles more spiritual and intellectual complexity than Passion does.

I disagree; it's a film that felt the need to sacrifice Jesus' divinity to make him "more human" to the audience; and The Passion makes him feel more human and relateable than he's ever been in a film; the scene where he's making a table and talking to His mother, and especially the sequence where His mother rushes over to help him up leading into a childhood flashback and the emotional impact in the line he delivers conveying to the audience how willingly He undertakes this burden for the good of everyone but Himself is more emotionally challenging than anything I've seen in a film featuring this, and probably any subject matter.
The moral dilemmas I was referring to weren't only pertaining to Jesus either, they're also shown through the strength of His mother to be able to endure this and help her Son endure it, through Pilate struggling with his conscience (his "what is truth?" monologue is incredibly thought provoking), Judas when he's tormented by his inner demons and the varying reactions of His disciples once they've betrayed him, some just giving up because they can't get over the guilt and others remembering their mentors message of forgivieness and later returning to Him, the varying reactions of both good and bad on each side of the people in the crowd, and the way some react with fear after realizing that they were wrong while others react with sorrow (ie. Caiphas' reaction once he realizes what he's done at the end of the film compared to the Romans that just run away...a good look at the sharp contrast between being sorry you did something, and being sorry that you got caught doing something)...
There's subtext all over the film, and the film challenges the audience to think about if this even MAY have happened?
It's not a film that tries to make certain members of its audience feel stupid for not agreeing with the filmmakers intentions, it's a film that was made to provoke alot of soul searching and interest in the material on both sides, which it succeeded in doing with flying colors.
Considering all that Gibson went through to get the film made against the wishes of every major studio and dealing with death threats from people that despised it so vehemently, but still feeling that it was important enough that this story be told this way to go through with it anyway, I find it to be the definitive example of bold filmmaking. It's a filmed that changed a ton of peoples lives, and got some of the strongest audience reactions on both sides of any film ever released to mainstream audiences.

 

[Lighthouse]

I dunno, the ballsiest, most interesting look at moral dilemmas and temptation in regards to the passion is certainly The Last Temptation of Christ, which has oodles more spiritual and intellectual complexity than Passion does.

Spot on. Not only is it the ballsiest Jesus film ever made, its also the best one. After seeing it, I for the life of me could not understood why certain Christians hate this film so much. Christians should be praising the this movie to high heaven. Pun intended.

 

[The Dark Defender]

After seeing it, I for the life of me could not understood why certain Christians hate this film so much.

Because it's a non-Biblical Jesus film that felt the needed to turn Him into a sinful human to make him "more relateable."

BTW, I don't hate the film, I only saw it once in full years ago and don't even really remember it that well. I know I wasn't nearly as impressed with it as TPOTC or Jesus of Nazareth, to name atleast two though.

Regardless of personal opinion of its quality, it was a bold film.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

I disagree; it's a film that felt the need to sacrifice Jesus' divinity to make him "more human" to the audience; and The Passion makes him feel more human and relateable than he's ever been in a film; the scene where he's making a table and talking to His mother, and especially the sequence where His mother rushes over to help him up leading into a childhood flashback and the emotional impact in the line he delivers conveying to the audience how willingly He undertakes this burden for the good of everyone but Himself is more emotionally challenging than anything I've seen in a film featuring this, and probably any subject matter.
The moral dilemmas I was referring to weren't only pertaining to Jesus either, they're also shown through the strength of His mother to be able to endure this and help her Son endure it, through Pilate struggling with his conscience (his "what is truth?" monologue is incredibly thought provoking), Judas when he's tormented by his inner demons and the varying reactions of His disciples once they've betrayed him, some just giving up because they can't get over the guilt and others remembering their mentors message of forgivieness and later returning to Him, the varying reactions of both good and bad on each side of the people in the crowd, and the way some react with fear after realizing that they were wrong while others react with sorrow (ie. Caiphas' reaction once he realizes what he's done at the end of the film compared to the Romans that just run away...a good look at the sharp contrast between being sorry you did something, and being sorry that you got caught doing something)...
There's subtext all over the film, and the film challenges the audience to think about if this even MAY have happened?
It's not a film that tries to make certain members of its audience feel stupid for not agreeing with the filmmakers intentions, it's a film that was made to provoke alot of soul searching and interest in the material on both sides, which it succeeded in doing with flying colors.
Considering all that Gibson went through to get the film made against the wishes of every major studio and dealing with death threats from people that despised it so vehemently, but still feeling that it was important enough that this story be told this way to go through with it anyway, I find it to be the definitive example of bold filmmaking. It's a filmed that changed a ton of peoples lives, and got some of the strongest audience reactions on both sides of any film ever released to mainstream audiences.

I think you took all of that spiritual subtext in to the film because of your devout Christianity. Your emotional/spiritual connection with the text was with you before the movie began. Which is fine for you since the film was essentially a straight adaptation of the passion story. But Last Temptation involved a hypothetical situation which intellectualized our ideas and perceptions of Jesus. Instead of adapting it straight from the Bible it showed a Jesus with more dimensions and complexity than Jesus has ever been granted.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

I'm interested in Elephant Man because of Hurt's performance mostly. PLus I want to expose myself to some more unconventional filmmaking. Something that will challenge me but weird me out at the same time.

Twin Peaks is a series and a film? Hmm. Mullholland Drive is the one with Naomi Watts right? I remember my mom telling me it's a great film. I've only seen uh... a certain scene between Watts and the other chick.

Videodrome and Scanners I'm interested in as well. I've only seen The Fly from Cronenberg.

I want to start with Rescue Dawn as my first Herzog film. Hell, some of the films you mentioned I don't even think they carry in my area.

But all your suggestions sound interesting. Thanks.

I also got into David Lynch because of Twin Peaks, so yeah, that's a great place to start. I followed it up with Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, Blue Velvet, Lost Highway and yesterday I saw Wild at Heart. I also saw The Elephant Man some time ago, but that was before I was into Lynch, so I must rewatch it sometime.

Don't skip Lost Highway, it's ****ing great. Especially if you want to expose yourself to some more unconventional filmmaking that will challenge you and freak you out at the same time.

Rescue Dawn is a good place to start with Herzog. Then watch his brilliant german stuff. Aguirre especially.