Post a response to this discussion thread
"you dismiss Tarantino as shallow,"
Because he is. :)
.
"why tout the influence of computer-bound technicans, especially since guys like Zemeckis and Scott are not the primary architects of their "influential" special effects."
Because that is a false assertion. Zemeckis is an effects wizard in his own right. And it is his genius in *applying* the technology that separates a Forrest Gump (not one of my favorite movies, but visually stunning) from run-of-the-mill "eye candy." Scott had a large impact on the effects in Alien. He was the one who developed the concept of a parasitical alien creature (based on his understanding of the biology of the spider wasp).
.
"In deciding where to put the camera, the style of the film, etc, director's deserve credit"
Yes, and that's why Scott is so good at what he does. Alien is tight and terrifying from beginning to end. I've already expounded on the great camera work and character development in the film, so I'm not going to repeat myself.
.
"which is why Tarantino's aesthetic, while shallow, is visually impressive and massively influential,"
Still gotta disagree. Tarentino has yet to show me anything original. I'll give him credit for being able to blend derivative influences. That may make him easily copied, but that doesn't make him a great director.
.
"not to mention creditable to him. Zemeckis and Scott merely oversaw the computer geeks who generated their special effects."
No. Repeating myself here, Zemeckis "directs" the application of computer wizardry as much as his flesh-and- blood actors. Anyone with a multi-million dollar budget can generate CGI eye candy. Zemeckis' films have a cleverness that are visually in a class by themselves (an assertion, but one most critics would agree with). Scott had a major influence in Alien, though probably less so in Blade Runner.
.
Also, Ridley Scott especially doesn't deserve that kind of credit considering it's entirely based on ONE FILM! The string of mediocrities since Blade Runner have to be counted in the measurement.
True enough. But look at it this way: Malcolm McDowell was brilliant in Clockwork Orange and IF and any number of theatrical productions. He also starred in utter shite like Caligula, Tank Girl and Blue Thunder. Is he a bad actor, then? Or merely not very choosy about the roles he's taken?
.
As for Scorsese, when I wrote 'more influential directors of the past twenty years,' I meant directors who have SURFACED in the past twenty years. By 1982, Scorsese had already made Mean Streets, Taxi Driver and Raging Bull among others.
Fair enough.
.
Post a response to this discussion thread