Clerks, honestly, what do you think?

Okay, I'll stipulate that ANYONE who gets his/her movie distributed deserves at least the respect that they actually followed through on their dream and did it. Using the arguement that KS has made six movies on little budgets makes him a good director puts Roger Corman at the top of the heap. He directed 55 movies. Looking through the list, I can't see one that I'd rush out and buy. Hell, even Ed Wood Jr. directed 18 movies and is only known because Plan 9 From Outer Space is so notoriously bad.

I think a little perspective is in order. Sure, the movies were made and distributed but would we be having this arguement if it had been Corman's name or Wood's name or even Phil Tucker's (Robot Monster - even worse that Plan 9) on it?
 
What kind of bull crap are we spouting. Not following thru....hmm how many ideas have we all had and not followed thru on. RR spent $7200 on Mariachi but it wouldn't have mattered if he spent ten cents. The real measure of a film or movie or video is if it communicates with an audience not if it meets our approval. Art was is and will always be subjective. I like Adam Sandler films and no I don't think he's Shakespere or Cassevetes but he hits home with some of us. Kevin Smith does the same thing. You can P&Moan about camera angles color correction or whatever but the art remains. Is the Mona Lisa or any piece of art any different. No they have all undergone scutiny lamblasting and the like in their day. If I say I like a film and you say its crap does that make you right and me wrong or me right and you wrong? No to both.

If you want to look at films from one narrow perspective than very few would measure up. Live and let live ultimately it is the art of our times like it or not.
 
Interesting timing. I just read this on screenwriter John August's web site:

Do you think it’s bad for the movie, if the story, the screenplay and directing is being done by the same person?

– Karri Tahvanainen
via IMDb

Not if that one person is extremely talented. Some of my favorite movies come from writer-directors, who carried the project from conception to completion.

But there are certainly writers who shouldn’t direct, and directors who would be better off leaving the words to someone else. For instance…

No, actually, I won’t name names. But it’s not hard to think of a few examples.

It may be helpful to compare the attributes of a writer to the life of a director.

WRITER: works alone, sets own schedule, implements notes
DIRECTOR: works with crew, follows production schedule, gives notes

The job of a writer and the job of a director are fundamentally different, which is why so few people are great at both.

But I think there are situations where the writer is justified in choosing to direct his own material, even if he is a misanthropic slow-poke who has trouble communicating with others. Some stories have such a unique vision and voice, they can really only be told by one person.

For example, Kevin Smith often gets ragged on for his directing, and I think even he’d admit that his films don’t always look that great. His camera work isn’t inspired. His staging can be awkward. But the fact is, a “more talented” director couldn’t make a Kevin Smith movie. His films rely on a certain attitude and personality that only he can provide. Terrence Malick’s CLERKS just wouldn’t be the same.
Click to expand...

Cheers,

Josh
 
TheYankee said:
What they have in common is simple, they both come up with ideas and don't follow through on them!
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily a bad thing.

For more info, please see the threads on Star Wars I, II, and III.

:grin:
 
Bigmagic said:
Art was is and will always be subjective. ... You can P&Moan about camera angles color correction or whatever but the art remains. ... If I say I like a film and you say its crap does that make you right and me wrong or me right and you wrong? No to both.
...
If you want to look at films from one narrow perspective than very few would measure up. Live and let live ultimately it is the art of our times like it or not.
Click to expand...

I can agree with the art arguement. It is ALL art. Some bad, some good, undoubtedly more bad than good, but still art. I don't have to like someone's art but that doesn't negate the fact that it is art. Art by its nature is subjective. The old phrase, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" couldn't be more true.
 
See, this is what gets on my nerves, when people say that art is subjective therefore it shouldn't be debated. I went through a period where I liked performance art. Now, you might find someone copping a squat and crapping all over a stage to reveal the meaninglessness of life, but to me it is just some sicko crappy on a stage.

No one is debating whether these films are art. We're discussing what we think about it. Since we're talking about the subjective nature of our opinion regarding it, of course we're all going to have differnet opinions. That's what makes discussion great. We talking about opinions...

I like the comments in that interview about KS. It's true, a Kevin Smith movie by anyone else wouldn't be a KS movie. It's true, he isn't a great director (then again, he is the only person able to get a decent performance out of Affleck). It's true his writing appeals to a certain group.

If Clerks was released today, shot on DV, same movie, same actors, just released 10 years later, same story behind him making it, would the movie get any attention at all?

I don't think so, in my opinion.
 
Blaine said:
Absolutely. :thumbsup:

And we all know what opinions are like...we all have one. :grin: :grin: :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

And if you currently live in Hollywood I hear the IN thing to do is to have yours bleached
 
TheYankee said:
And if you currently live in Hollywood I hear the IN thing to do is to have yours bleached
Click to expand...

Oh, man. I could have lived without that image. :beer:
It'll take :beer: :beer: to wash that image away. :grin: :grin:
 
What a great thread !

I have a friend who likes to watch flies hump, he thinks that's the funniest thing in the world. That doesn't mean that I'm going to go out and see a movie about it though just because he says that it's good.
Click to expand...

you might find someone copping a squat and crapping all over a stage to reveal the meaninglessness of life
Click to expand...

LMAO. These both made my morning Yankee. Where can I find QT's take on Clerks 2 ?

That is a good point. What would be interesting would be to look at the freshman indie releases of directors who are now somewhere and compare what they created with
Click to expand...

This for me is a huge issue; whether or not a filmmaker matures and shows artistic growth, again, something Smith has not done yet. His films wreak of lacking directorial talent whereas directors like QT, RR, PJ have shown quantam leaps in artistry

---

And QT does have a peculiar taste (Yeah, even horrible) in films; I love QT (Possibly my favorite). Someone sais drecently he was 'The Bastard Child of Cinema' or something; I agree and it's a good thing. People that don't dig Tarantino or 'Get him' distress me.
 
I think the problem with the writer/director is a lack of conflict. SOmetimes great things come from the triangle of hell between the writer, director and producer. When you have someone like Smith, Tarantino, Anderson or Rodriguez, you find something in common: They are one trick ponies for the most part. Now how well they do that one trick is not what I am debating, but very few (and I can't think of any to be honest) writer/directors seem to evolve very much until they collaborate more. QT turned the world upside down with Pulp and Reservoir Dogs. But my favorite film of his is Jackie Brown, probably because he didn't write it. Smith's films outside of the J&SB mythos largely fail. Probably because it is that mythos and it's relatability that sustain his fan base; not some inherently great quality of his writing. I have heard by those more initiated into RR's work that Sin City was the best thing he has done (I stll haven't seen it) Well, he neither wrote that, nor was he the driving force behind the look of it. I'm not trying to take anything away from these guys, but it's hard enough to do ONE THING well.

I just think that some of these guys fill their world with sycophants, when true creativity comes from being challenged, not by following your whims. That doesn't mean you shouldn't stick with what you are good at, but you should try to expand and improve it.
 
vjbrennan said:
QT turned the world upside down with Pulp and Reservoir Dogs. But my favorite film of his is Jackie Brown, probably because he didn't write it.
Click to expand...

Jackie Brown is my favorite, too, but he DID write the screenplay with a couple of big changes from the book, Rum Punch by Elmore Leonard. :thumbsup:
 
Elmore Leonard wrote the novel upon which Jackie Brown was based however QT did write the script for the movie. I feel it shows in the dialogue.
 
Filmjunkie677 said:
And that entire multiple POV SEQUENCE. Thats's QT all the way.
Click to expand...

Actually, he got that from Kubrick in "The Killing". I saw him talking about that in an interview one time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top