|
An Exercise in Laziness: The Current State of Directors
As per my usual, I went to the local DVD retailer and bought a movie I havent seen nor heard much about mainly because it looked interesting and had a director that pumped out a debut feature I found fun. The movie that inspired this next rambling was directed by Wayne Kramer (The Cooler) starring an actor that has less charisma than a cardboard box, Paul Walker, entitled Running Scared. Seeing as this movie came from a promising director and fell under one of my favorite guilty pleasure genres, exploitation, it seemed like a decent buy. Sure it had an actor that I only respected (in a totally heterosexual way) for how he sculpted his body (one this chubby writer wishes he could find the discipline to form), but worse actors have found greatness under good direction (i.e. Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love and Marky Mark Wahlberg in Boogie Nights). There truly is no bad actors, only bad directors.
My purchase ended up being a complete waste of money. It turns out the one doubt I had in my mind after seeing the fantastic trailers came truethe movie was shot in the hyper stylized (to a mindless effect) ultra kinetic (in a bad way) manner that all movies that want to be cool are shot in these days. The advent of technology has seemed to be a double edged sword. There are a very few films that seem to blend interesting camera techniques to actually tell the story better. However, more often than not it seems that most directors these days cover up their inability to tell a story by trying to show off how cool they can make their film look. Remember the days when films were shot simply but the story and acting was enough to make you stay glued to your seat? It seems that MTV has killed those days.
Lets take a look at some of the culprits. First there is Guy Richie. Guy Richies first two films are basically the same movie, however, they are fun films. This basically comes from the great cast and the fun script. They never take themselves seriously and for that they can be loved. The only problem with these films is the overuse of style for no apparent purpose. The camera goes here, it goes there, it does this, it does that. Is there a purpose for any of this? No. It merely distracts from the enjoyment of the story because the whole time all you can think is Wow, look what he is doing with his camera!!! If only he would use his camera to better tell his story and not show off he would have made gangster movie classics instead of fun little films that will be forgotten in time.
Then there is Tony Scott. Wow. This guy once made one of my favorite films (True Romance) but now can take an otherwise interesting story and turn it into a total and complete Avid Fart. Not a single shot in his films seem to last more than a split second. Its almost like he just shoots pick ups and then pieces them all together and hopes they work. Now, style isnt bad. In fact the mark of a good director is having a style unto his own. The problem with a Tony Scott film is that when the entire movie is moving faster than the final lap of a NASCAR race the scenes that are supposed to be emotionally resonant arent. These scenes that should make the audience feel something end up having the same impact as the car chase you just saw 5 minutes earlier. The whole time you watch one of these movies it seems like you took some really bad mescalin and are suffering through a 2 hour trip down hells highway. Again all style, no substance.
There are a million more culprits out there. In fact every week there seems to be a new one of these all style and no substance films where even the action scenes are boring because you have no idea what is going on. Quick shots have replaced good choreography. This style of filmmaking is just plain lazy. Talent is shown through actually being able to communicate a story to the audience. When you dont know what is going on, the director hasnt done his job.
I will close this column out with the one example of high style that actually added to the content of the script. Darren Aronofskys Requiem for a Dream is the perfect example of style, script, and performance. In this film, Aronofsky must have used every camera trick known to man. However, each time he shot something, it added to the mood of the scene. He used this inventive style to better tell his story. This film is perfect. When he is grabbing tender scenes he doesnt distract with the camera. He lets the words and performance play out and lets you live in the scene. When he is showing mania, he lets the camera go wild in a way that makes the audience feel they are going crazy with the characters. I could go on about this film for days and breakdown and analyze the perfection of every scene, but that would take a very long article. Maybe Ill write one in the future. Until then, go watch Casablanca and see a great story well told.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Movie Club |
|
 The MMC Movie Club is coming soon! Keep your eye out for it...
|
|
|
|
|
|