Sam Mendes makes his debut an Oscar?

J.R. Hudson

J.R. Hudson

Spirit Animal
I have always been confounded how something like Sam Mendes; making his Directorial debut wins BEST DIRECTOR (American Beauty) and PICTURE and on and on and on........................

His Directorial Debut. Yes I know he was a Thetare and Stage Director for many years; but this does not make a Filmmaker. And i find it hard pressed to just say "We''ll he's a natural....."

No no no

You can be a natural born brain surgeon, sports athelete, musician.... etc etc etc but you must still learn 'HOW TO" make the ****ing film. One does not simply pick up a moviecamera and automatically know how to block and shoot for coverage; do you know what I mean?

And then I looked at the DP's behind the films Sam has helmed:

Conrad L. Hall

and

Roger Deakins

Two cinematographers I'd love to have on my team; duh.

So what's the deal? Was it Conrad who 'Shot' American Beauty and Road to Perdition? Is it Deakins who shot the coming 'Jarhead'? I don;t doubt ole Sam has learned his chops by now; but what's with the Oscar on FIRST FILM EVER?
 
A damn good script by Alan Ball, an exception performance by Spacey (and everyone else), shoot beautifully by Conrad Hall and all held together by Mendes. I am not familar with the editor, but I would guess they were one of the best around too.

His commentary for American Beauty is very interesting, he gives a lot of credit to the people around him, as they deserved. I think he planned the film extensively with storyboards. It will be interesting to see how he pulls off Jarhead.
 
I think it was Sam. I mean, the job of a director is to make sure everyone is at the top of their game, and on American Beauty and Road to Perdition they certainly were. If you read Alan Ball's original screenplay for American Beauty, it takes the film in an entirely different direction.

**SPOILER**

The film started out in the jail cell of Rickey Fitz (Wes Bently), as the two teenagers were being charged with the murder of Lester (Spacey). Then the film cuts to Lester flying over his house (Sam actually did film this, but cut it out)

**END SPOILER**

It was Sam Mendes' decision to cut that part out, and Alan Ball even aknowledges the fact that Sam made the right choice. The movie was very well thought out by Sam, down to every little detail.

However, if you are going to make a great film, you need to assemble a team of great talents, and American Beauty was brimming with it. Conrad L. Hall's cinematography is absolutely stunning, the acting is great all around, the script is rock solid, the music is gorgeous, it is well edited, etc.

But, by figuring out exactly what he wanted, and how he wanted it conveyed, Sam Mendes must be credited for a stunning debut film. There is also an argument that Gregg Tolland is more responsible for the greatness of Citizen Kane, which I disagree with as well.

Sam came from a theater background (Wells came from a radio background), and they do things differently. The actors loved working with Mendes because he loved to rehearse, Hall loved working for him because of the imput Sam would give, and Ball aknowledged that Sam interpreted his screenplay better than he could have ever dreamed of. The guy is simply amazing (I LOVED Road to Perdition, also). I can't wait for Jarhead. Anyway, just my thoughts...
 
Well, let's see...

Spacey, Benning, Cooper, Birch + a theatrical director = great performances. Because one thing stage directors do know is how to get that performance... Can't think of anything else they could provide for a Film production without proper school.

So, you've got Academy Award acting, good. Now you need a story that'd allow for such acting, right? That's where Alan Ball, now 2 times Emmy winner (for Six Feet Under) might prove handy.

Oh and don't forget it's Spielberg's Dreamworks behind the whole thing. That's 15 millions for a family drama right there as well as ability to use songs by anyone from Dylan to McCartney, 2 times Oscar nominee composer and even Oscar nominee costume designer. Basically everything.

Now, with a script, actors and Dreamworks to back you up you get an 8 times Oscar nominee/1 time winner DP with a 47 years experience. What can possibly go wrong?


Or maybe Mendes *is* a natural...
 
Tony D'Amato said:
Do I smell jealousy?
Click to expand...

Get a load of this guy. No Anthony. That would be your upper-lip.

----------------

You guys are right; sorrounding yourself with the best talent is key; film is such a collaborative medium and we always forget as we run around writing, shooting, directing, editing...

I still gotta wonder how much of that 'Frame and Comp' was a by-product of Conrad going "Hey Sam. What do you think of this?"
 
Stabb_Films said:
And he's married to Kate Winslet. Jealousy indeed.
Click to expand...

Would you want to marry her? I'm sure she is a lovely girl and all, but her face is so annoying IMO...urgh! Weird mouth.

I am not jealous of Mendes at all, I respect him as a filmmaker, but his style is VERY different to mine, so I wouldn't ever want to direct like him.

Hearing him speak, I personally think he gets bogged down with the academics of filmmaking and doesn't have a natural instinct for it like a director like Jim Cameron or Spielberg. He also shows a few classic amateur filmmaker trates - eg, what is the point in the trombone shot that introduces Jude Law in Road to Perdition? I like his films, but find them quite "film schooly."
 
I clicked on your link to Conrad Hall. I wasn't actually aware he had passed away. Amazingly though, he dp'ed Road to Perdition at 75! I'd love to be able to do something I love professionally for that long. That's inspirational.

As for Mendes. If I remember correctly there was a huge buzz surrounding him before he turned to film. Can't remember which play it was, but he won Tony's or something like that and everyone was talking about how much of a natural talent he was.

Crazy though how some people have stuff just drop in their laps while others have to work for years at one specific craft before achieving even minor success.

(Not that this guy's in the same boat, but the guy who wrote "The Final Cut" sort of had the same thing happen. The producers asked him who his dream list was and he ended up with Tak Fujimoto dp, Dede Allen editing, Robin Williams starring, then to top it off got to direct. Not a bad start)
 
mmm said:
Would you want to marry her? I'm sure she is a lovely girl and all, but her face is so annoying IMO...urgh! Weird mouth.
Click to expand...


Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Maybe it was the crazy hair, but me liked.

Would I marry her... well no, she's associated to Hollywood. That means inevitable divorce.
 
Stabb_Films said:
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Maybe it was the crazy hair, but me liked.
Click to expand...

No, no, no!

It was all about Kirsten Dunst in that film. She is so ugly in Spiderman, but when she is blonde, she is HOT! Really odd. I must have Gingerphobia.

Sorry... please contiue the mature discussion on Mendes despite me. I apologize :lipsrseal
 
I think Hudson makes a really good point here, but in general awarding a best director is complete bull$hit to begin with. Unless you are actually on set it is impossible to judge what a director does or doesn't do.

Let's say that there is a problem with a company. Wallstreet immediately accuses the CEO, but he has tons of managers who might be responsible. If the company is doing well but he's on the golf course all day, then he's a genious and on the cover of Fortune.

I have always hated Best Director, normally just comes down to more Hollywood political crap.
 
Well there are a lot of directors that leave the blocking to the cameraman. If he made that choice and if he choose the cameraman, you can say he is equally important as a director.

He is an experienced stage director, knows his skills and his difficulties, and worked around them. he deserves the oscar, for sure.

But yeah, when I see Road to Perdition, I know that was Conrad Hall saying farewell to all of us... I think that was the last of Conrad Hall's films.
 
I know producers who vote as members of AMPAS, and I'll tell you some of them agonize over the vote, while others let their 15 year old neices make the decision and yet another told me he nominated his friend based on friendship alone.

Now, I believe, in this particular case, that Mendes crafted a truly amazing film out of the gate. You could chalk this up to luck, collaborative crutchery or pure, unadulterated talent. I'd opine that it is a combination of two and three.

Theatrical writers / directors sometimes - and I know I'll catch hell for this - make me insane when they are at the helm directing for film. In particular, David Mamet's dry, stagey, stiff, Machiavellian technique is akin to nails on a blackboard for me.

It isn't that I feel that Mamet can't write or direct for legitmate theater - or even write for film. Rather, I feel that in his case, his theatrical disciplines don't translate into the intimate performances spoken through the eye and subtle nuance toward a lens.

Instead, his talent acts via the diaphram across a venue of 300 or more, and never, NEVER! turns against the fourth wall - not for a moment! Don't forget that you must include a telephone in every film - remember film and literary student: the telephone handset is a penis!!!

Great, except the camera is two feet ten inches from Rebecca Pidgeon's face and I'm uncomfortable watching her stumble over the line quagmire Mamet has beset upon her Royal-Academy-pedigreed... uh, well... anyway.

The films he's written and not directed, I often find myself loving: Hoffa; Glengarry Glen Ross; Ronin; The Untouchables; Wag the Dog.

So, John, I think, in my humble opinion, that we should give Mendes the benefit of the doubt and thank our lucky stars that we don't have another Mamet to suffer.

e
 
hmm...i see it the other way...to me it makes sense that a guy could come from theater and knock one out of the park. years and years of working with actors, and sometimes film actors in theater. directing theater is no walk in the park. and im sure he has been a fan/study of film for a while...he probly has been studying the art form for quite sometime...film like theater is collaborative...conrad, while being a major contributor to the film no doubt had things to say...but is not enouugh to hold up the movie...there is more to his films then nice composition/lighting....watch any movie done by some music video directors and you can see that.

i think coming from theater he also has a slightly different take on things then someone trained in film or music videos.

anyway, blah blah blah...i think his films have class and are emotional...and really zap you at the end...i always think of him as being in another class from other hollywood filmmakers.
 
Rich Lee said:
hmm...i see it the other way...to me it makes sense that a guy could come from theater and knock one out of the park. years and years of working with actors, and sometimes film actors in theater. directing theater is no walk in the park. and im sure he has been a fan/study of film for a while...he probly has been studying the art form for quite sometime...film like theater is collaborative...conrad, while being a major contributor to the film no doubt had things to say...but is not enouugh to hold up the movie...there is more to his films then nice composition/lighting....watch any movie done by some music video directors and you can see that.

i think coming from theater he also has a slightly different take on things then someone trained in film or music videos.

anyway, blah blah blah...i think his films have class and are emotional...and really zap you at the end...i always think of him as being in another class from other hollywood filmmakers.
Click to expand...
Well said, Rich...I totally agree.
 
:huh: What I don't see is how Mendes gets the nod his first time up to the plate...
yet deserving directors of the past were overlooked for how long?

For example:
Spielberg (pre-90's)
Reds (Warren Beatty) over Raiders?
Gandhi (Attenborough) over E.T.?

not to mention
Annie Hall (Woody Allen) over Star Wars (28 years later it's still hard to comprehend!)

...And please don't get me started on the lifetime of snubs to Hitchcock!!
 
CallaghanFilms said:
:huh: What I don't see is how Mendes gets the nod his first time up to the plate...
yet deserving directors of the past were overlooked for how long?

For example:
Spielberg (pre-90's)
Reds (Warren Beatty) over Raiders?
Gandhi (Attenborough) over E.T.?

not to mention
Annie Hall (Woody Allen) over Star Wars (28 years later it's still hard to comprehend!)

...And please don't get me started on the lifetime of snubs to Hitchcock!!
Click to expand...


sci fi/adventure? i dont think those genres were taken very seriously...even though they are potentially big box office draws.
 
Rich Lee said:
sci fi/adventure? i dont think those genres were taken very seriously...even though they are potentially big box office draws.
Click to expand...
Gladiator and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King are two examples of the genres winning the big prize. I do know what you are saying though, it's rare...

I don't feel the respective genres of the examples I gave had anything to do with their not winning. I think their commercial success actually hurt them at the time (from an "it's-good-enough-for-the-masses attitude toward them.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top