That made me question a while ago and has given me to debate, since that is too broad a question how to choose just one director? is almost impossible because There are so many different ways of filmmaking, genius in some aspect of management, although of course there are also those who can not make the O with a joint, I know there are directors who have a weight on his behalf, which can not Revata , but movies can be compared with each other?. 
For me one of the best things you can review a director is his dominance in regard to directing the actors, some perhaps the only real rule, a good director of actors, and much note when an actor is mediocre or not able to draw from itself to its full potential, something that if the director is not good at it, what happens happens, who does that? such as Pedro Almodóvar does , uses his actors like puppets, at will, the moves by the footage and fully fit and still be normally hard and complex stories, like because everything is fine yarn. Others are able to do really amazing work, are what I call entertainment directors who? Wachowski Brothers as , because although I do not see them doing a Hamlet , nobody can say no are great film directors of a cult show and also as Matrix , innovative and offenders, they are noteworthy, indeed, made history by doing this saga, now many of its innovations are used in many other films There are many films that they reveal.
A very clear example of something quite contrary to this is Gus Van Sant , one of my favorites, makes independent films are groundbreaking films at the box office, he tells stories without an exorbitant budget, but do not need, just choose a story and puts it in a very particular, creating aesthetically beautiful works despite being normally heartbreaking stories, I know the work of the director not reach everybody, but nobody can say it's a bad director, just has opted for a type of film, non-commercial and is another who can say it's a great actor's director.
A very clear example of something quite contrary to this is Gus Van Sant , one of my favorites, makes independent films are groundbreaking films at the box office, he tells stories without an exorbitant budget, but do not need, just choose a story and puts it in a very particular, creating aesthetically beautiful works despite being normally heartbreaking stories, I know the work of the director not reach everybody, but nobody can say it's a bad director, just has opted for a type of film, non-commercial and is another who can say it's a great actor's director. 
And you can not believe that a film can is great for just the director, when a film like "The Godfather " comes round and reaches our times no a bad age, yes of course clear is Francis Ford Coppola , no doubt about it, but also by an entire team, from the casting team although Mr. Coppola and producers decided that the heavyweights tape were those who were behind a lot of players who correctly went through a casting equipment, and other details that are well chosen, why leave a great movie? because everything is taken care, music, costumes, sets, script, actors, direction, so can you say that " Godfather" Coppola is great for ? yes but it's great for the complete package of the film, with a person who knows where it goes and where to go, making everything is flawless, leading the team and players well. 
Why so fond of Woody Allen ? is clear to me, because his films (almost all) stories are surreal, sometimes with famous actors and sometimes he did reach the top actors who chose to become the same, because their stories are well told despite be some continuity of surreal, as I said in fact his films are simple, but with a history complex. Moreover, for example I like films more when he himself uses as an actor and why the image does not sell anything, and that beauty has little, but it does have something I like and also fits into the stories and characters written for him and knows what she wants out of himself. Now if I have clear is that Mr. Allen be different and is a curiously strange, something that is implicit in all his films, for me anyway a genius.
But beware that not all directors can make some those who reserve a character for herself are more expendable, a clear case is Quentin Tarantino, creating great movies, but bad enough as an actor. Anyway, his films are so great and you grab the papers so that they can book are like a wink to his audience, because we, his character in "Pulp Fiction " natural or credible is it? 're seeing Quentin Tarantino and now.
There is perhaps a case and is contrary to previous Clint Eastwood, because for me as actor was gradually improving, but the truth is that no gesture features are the best, but I must admit that it is far better when it has to lead and go, doing the occasional gem of cinema. That happens as well with Mel Gibson that is proving to be a very good director, as an actor was not bad but spent more for being a pretty face.
Just do not always have to have a name from a project that becomes a success, worship or any of the variants to tell God that movie! simply there are films that came to our days or jumping today as a total success, without names on the front or at least not remembered these great among the greats. I still think it is almost impossible to compare the works of the great, how do you compare the "Godfather", "Balde Runner" or "Some Like It Hot"? What do they have to do together? therefore do not think you can choose a director from so many that are possible.
So how do you choose just one? is almost impossible. Should I choose? Alfred Hitchcock as tell , Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Copppola , Stanley Kubrick , Billy Wilder, Woody Allen , Quentin Tarantino, Gus Van Sant , Tim Burton, Alejandro Amenabar , Pedro Almodóvar, Martin Scorsese , M. Night Shyamalan, Coen Brothers ... Did you see? is that I can not.
"You can stay with just one?
0 comments:
Post a Comment