No, this isn’t a post where I’m going to bash a director. I’m just surprised how much of what I read online involves director bashing.
Or, if it doesn’t, the comments section for the articles are loaded with director bashing.
The director is a strange creature in my opinion (despite the fact I sometimes am one). They’re all incredibly different and, despite collaborating with huge crews to put something together, typically receive most of the praise (or blame) for a film, depending on how it turns out. Truth is, making a film is such a detailed and arduous process, that, vision aside, it’s very difficult to get a finished product to even closely approximate what had originally been intended.
But I digress...
The article that sparked this blog post was Terry Gilliam: The Difference Between Kubrick (Great Filmmaker) and Spielberg (Less So). Check it out. The core of Gilliam’s argument is that creating happy or successful endings (even for otherwise depressing films) is less “great” than creating films people have to go home and think about.
I regard both of these directors very highly. Kubrick is in my top two all-time favorite directors (along with Hitchcock), but Spielberg is definitely in my top ten, and close to breaking my top five. What shocked me reading through the comments section of this article is that it instantly became Kubrick vs. Spielberg. I mean, I understand why - the article is about comparing their styles, even though, as a few people pointed out, it’s like comparing ‘apples to oranges.’
But even so, the comments were less about comparing and more about ripping one or the other to shreds (and usually it was Spielberg getting shredded.) One participant who came to Spielberg’s defense - not ripping up Kubrick, but trying to show why Spielberg contributes something of value - got massacred by the others.
The more comments I read, the more my jaw dropped. I think it’s obvious that both of these men are incredibly talented, and that anyone interested in film can benefit from studying both of their techniques. I understand feeling super-passionate about Kubrick (or whichever director affects you the most) but to go on to say that one director is COMPLETELY worthless just because you like the other one more is a bit ridiculous.
Who can argue that Spielberg has had a tremendous affect on cinema, and that he’ll go down as one of its legendary figures? How many images from Spielberg films have become an ingrained part of our culture?
A few people ripped on the fact that Jaws was only a success because the shark broke and Spielberg had to improvise... but isn’t the ability to creatively solve such problems on-set the hallmark of a great director?
I don’t think the entire body of work of one person (who is undeniably talented) can be totally discounted just because one person of (arguably) greater talent also exists. Have your preferences - but be open-minded.
Besides... Jaws is simply wonderful. :)
BONUS NOTE: I had one other thing to say about director bashing, because of all directors, this is the one I probably see get bashed THE MOST: M. Night Shyamalan. In my opinion, his undoing lies in the fact that his first movie, The Sixth Sense, is so amazing that everything after it fails to measure up. But honestly, he’s made quite a few movies since then that I’ve enjoyed. I thought Signs, The Village, and Devil were all pretty good, maybe with a few things I would have changed, but thoroughly enjoyable and engrossing none the less. Also with some excellent, artistic shots. If these had come before Sixth Sense, I think this might have been a director who developed a loyal following based on his knack for building suspense that later would have made him more main-stream. As it is, he was catapulted to major super-stardom overnight, giving everyone free reign to be super-critical of his future efforts.
But, feel free to disagree in the comments... just keep it all in perspective. :)
