board77

Jnyusa wrote:

Re your first post, Yes - I'm enjoying the discussion very much too! How long has it been since we've been able to have this kind of discussion here?

Uh, never?

The KingKong reference was a joke, as you no doubt realize. It will be interesting to see what he does with "The Lovely Bones", assuming that he really does take on that project after Kong

I'm sorry I've been distracted, but I'm wandering around in low-tech Silicon Valley and can't find wireless when I need it. I see you are doing fine.

Tosh,

I hadn't thought of the gigantism angle. It's sometimes an immature reaction to a situation, but I'll have to think about how it applies to Jackson.

Cerin,

I know several people who love Flatliners and it took me a while to understand what they saw. I don't have much affection for it, but after watching it several times looking for content, it struck me it was all about the method. I would describe it as "deliberate".

I agree with your respect for PJ's work, but because if the importance of it, I think that some of us who love film have a yearning to dissect and understand it. This includes examing the mistakes.

Voronwe (response to 8/20/05 @ 1034)

I can agree PJs lack of restraint helped in a few ways. Most importantly, I agree another director would not have tackled this project. It took someone with a vision of doing things on a grand scale. Lean thought he did this with Zhivago, but it doesn't compare to PJ's effort.

I don't agree the lows are necessary. It may be a reflection of my own personality, but I appreciate evenness, which does not imply moderation. I don't think evenness needs to be boring. I'm not sure about the irreverence either. It did take some amount of brashness to even think of overcoming the organizational issues. Maybe it is unreasonable to think it can be focused.

I do think PJ understood the importance of his work in several dimensions. I don't accept that he should not have felt responsible for ensuring his work was appropriate to the magnitude of the undertaking. I'm sure he had Oscar in his sight from the beginning and the need to overcome the fantasy barrier should have compelled him to take a more mature approach.

Niamh,

I am without my library for reference, but I think you are correct about Tolkien's view that fairy stories should be done seriously.

I agree PJ was a B movie director before LOTR, but I think his project required that he advance. I think there is much evidence that he did and that he is capable of presenting scenes maturely.

PJ knew most of his audience wouldn't be familiar with Tolkien and there are moments in LOTR that demonstrate that he, or someone close to him, understood much of Tolkien very well. I'm sure it was a struggle to determine how to present to both groups without insulting the other. I don't think The Final Tally or POTD were suitable for any part of his audience within the context of the films. Certainly the Corsairs of Umbar was only pandering to himself.


I've only made it part way through the discussion and I have to stop. My schedule isn't my own this week. I will return.

Hi,

I have so little time these days, that participating in any discussion here becomes increasingly difficult.

Just chiming in to say a few words:

Lack of restraint is indeed PJ's biggest apparent weakness, as I have advocated many times on TORC. This lack of restraint is particularly damageable in an adaptation of LOTR, whose heroic style required a serious and even tone. Lack of restraint and irreverence do not suit heroic romance. In that respect, the use of humor in films is not the same thing as a lack of restraint when the former is well done (see Kurosawa or Ford).

Lack of restraint is also the apparent phenomenom of a feature of PJ's adaptation of LOTR, which we also have discussed many times on TORC: his absence of sense of wholeness, as Jn said, ie, his absence of thematical and stylistical consistency, which permeates PJ's LOTR throughout.

As I have argued, it is I think because PJ did not have a clear and coherent understanding of what Tolkien tried to do with LOTR, of what the meaning of LOTR is as a whole, or was simply not interested enough in it to try to clearly understand it (PJ was more interested in the emotional and psychological aspects of the story, a paradox for someone adapting a semi-mythological heroic romance), that he injected for entertaining reasons (that is, in his opinion) cheap humor and over-the-top scenes in his film. Before coherence and consistence, must first come (conscious or unconscious) understanding. So PJ's lack of restraint is both the translation of his temperament (belonging to the subjective) and a testament to his choice not to treat LOTR as a consistent and coherent book (belonging to the objective). Indeed, If PJ's lack of restraint was only subjectively caused by PJ's temperament and in fact derived from a clear and consistent understanding of the book, then it would not be as noticeable and as irritating or ridiculous (the POTD is a ridiculous scene). In some respects, directors like Welles, Kurosawa, Ford or Leone showed in some of their films lack of stylistical restraint (some scenes of Throne of Blood for AK, some comical scenes for Ford, some overdirected scenes of Otello for Welles, almost every scene of every western of Leone, except for Once Upon a time the Revolution, his best film after Once Upon a time in America; in some respect, PJ is a modernized, MTV-age version of Leone; both love close-ups, but Leone's camera is still and he extends time with his quiet pace, where PJ moves his camera and contracts time with his love of fast-paced reversals). But this lack of restraint never damaged or contradicted the overall themes and content of their films, as it was part of a coherent overall vision, this very vision that PJ lacks. It is for example objectively impossible IMO for a director to understand Tolkien's treatment of death and to include at the same time a scene like PJ's POTD in an adapted LOTR.

Conclusion: PJ can be objectively criticized.

Concerning the issue of whether PJ is a bad/good/great director. If one takes the view that in films, the whole should always be superior to the episodic scenes constituting the film, then I think that one cannot consider PJ as a good director.

If one considers that the magic of cinema lies in its details and in its entertaining values, then one can consider PJ as good director.

PS: Spielberg did not direct The Goonies.

Thanks, Semprini. I was hoping you would show up here.

I'm glad you mentioned Leone, as I was thinking about him and his love of close-ups. I think that referring to PJ as a MTV-era Leone is an apt comparison.

While I agree with many of your observations, where we differ is in the question of whether PJ presented a coherent overall vision. I believe that despite his lapses and lack of restraint, he did present a coherent overall vision, and that that is the secret of why the films were so wildly successful. And I will add that a director could not fail to understand Tolkien's treatment of death and include a scene like Arwen's Fate.

Quote:

I do think PJ understood the importance of his work in several dimensions. I don't accept that he should not have felt responsible for ensuring his work was appropriate to the magnitude of the undertaking. I'm sure he had Oscar in his sight from the beginning and the need to overcome the fantasy barrier should have compelled him to take a more mature approach.

Yes, Idylle, 17 Oscars (and 11 out of 11 for ROTK, the most unrestrained of the films) was clearly not sufficient.

You're welcome Voronwe.

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:

And I will add that a director could not fail to understand Tolkien's treatment of death and include a scene like Arwen's Fate.

I am pressed by time, so I will respond to this by copying and pasting something I had said in the Are they important films thread on TORC. I apologize in advance:

'The Arwen and Aragorn’s tale as seen by PJ is a good example of a “complex of culture”. It has been claimed here that by expanding the A&A tale, PJ expanded upon Tolkien’s desire for deathlessness theme. I disagree with this statement, which IMO just looks at the image of Arwen dying in the film without analyzing the kind of substance/meaning this image belongs to. There is in fact little in PJ’s treatment of the A&A tale that is about the condemnation of the desire for deathlessness (even worse, in a way, it is the vision of her child, ie, the best mean men have found in practice to pursue their immortality dream, which rekindles Arwen's hope in the film; but this is OOT, and I hasten to add that I liked the child vision scene). Tolkien said that the A&A appendice in the book is essential to the desire for deathlessness theme and I believe that it is true. Why is it true? Because of the choice by Aragorn of the manner of his death. Aragorn chooses to die, showing that he does not fear death and that he accepts his human condition. Had he not accepted his condition he would have taken the Ring, which gives immortality. It is thus in Aragorn’s dying scene that the desire for deathlessness theme is present, and the refusal to yield to such desire is presented as the proper way for Men. It is a serene death in the book, where Aragorn says to Arwen that she should not despair and that she should accept death as a blessing, as Eru’s Gift to Men. Tolkien's theme is conveyed by the wise words of Aragorn to Arwen and by his peaceful death. This scene is not in the film, except, very much altered, in the form of a flashforward. However, the purpose of PJ’s flashforward is completely different from the purpose of Tolkien’s initial scene. The film shows an image of a dying Aragorn evoked by Elrond for the purpose of despairing Arwen, of showing her how terrible and sorrowful death is. The substance from which PJ's scene draws is therefore exactly the opposite of the substance from which Tolkien's scene draws. Where Tolkien associates death with acceptance and serenity, PJ associates death with despair. Hence, Tolkien’s desire for deathlessness theme, which is about the fact that Men yearn for immortality but should not accept it and should on the contrary die serene, thus obeying to their human condition, which is a gift given to them at birth, is not treated by PJ. On the contrary, it is modified. And this is even truer for the fact that Arwen’s fate is linked to Middle Earth in ROTK. This serves to increase the stakes (as if they needed to be increased). This also serves to give a role to Arwen in the narrative. It may serve another theme. But it certainly does not serve the desire for deathlessness theme.

Multiple edits because of multiple typos.

Not enough time for a fully thought out post or even to really read the full thread (I skimmed it).

Initial though upon reading IS's opening post: He's right, the difficulty would be getting everyone to agree where restraint was needed. For example, I STRONGLY disagree with IS's complaints about the lava at Mt. Doom. The more restrained version that imagine IS would have preferred would have immensely weakened my favorite film scene of all time, imo. I also think almost all of the "excessive" Leggy moments so many complain about work really well. If it were up to me, I wouldn't cut any of them out of the film.

Thought after a bit of pondering: No, lack of restraint is PJs strength, not his weakness. Nobody goes big as well as PJ goes big in this films. The main problem that virtually everone seems to agree the films suffer from is inconsistency in tone which I don't see as a restraint issue. I'd argue that that is more an issue of a lack of a focused vision - ie. he didn't know exactly what kind of film he was making and so he could never pin down the tone he's working in.

Camera movement: Entirely a matter of taste. THere's now way to objectively say that still or small camera movements are better then big camera movements. PJ's style is BIG and, again, nobody does big better than these films. Comparing these films to 2001 or LoA (which I haven't seen) is absurd. It's like complaining that Dali's use of light isn't more like Monet's. Totally different styles.

On the episodic nature: See my posts about TTT. I agree 100% with FOTR and ROTK, but I strongly disagree with TTT. I feel really strongly that, objectively, TTT is the best of the three. I was actually thinking about starting a thread to argue that but I have neither the time nor qualifications to do so. Nonetheless, I'll say that TTT is the only one, imo, that tells one whole story instead of 10-15 small stories (FOTR).


EDIT:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:45 am Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top
Hi,

I have so little time these days, that participating in any discussion here becomes increasingly difficult.

Just chiming in to say a few words:

Lack of restraint is indeed PJ's biggest apparent weaknesses, as I have advocated many times on TORC. This lack of restraint is particularly damageable in an adaptation of LOTR, whose heroic style required a serious and even tone. Lack of restraint and irreverence do not suit heroic romance. In that respect, the use of humor in films is not the same thing as a lack of restraint when the former is well done (see Kurosawa or Ford).

Lack of restraint is also the apparent phenomenom of a feature of PJ's adaptation of LOTR, which we also have discussed many times on TORC: his absence of sense of wholeness, as Jn said, ie, his absence of thematical and stylistical consistency, which permeates PJ's LOTR throughout.

EDIT:

Semprini wrote:

As I have argued, it is I think because PJ did not have a clear and coherent understanding of what Tolkien tried to do with LOTR

PJ didn't need a coherent understanding of what Tolkien tried to do, he needed a coherent understanding of what he was trying to do.

Yov>>>PJ didn't need a coherent understanding of what Tolkien tried to do, he needed a coherent understanding of what he was trying to do.

Agreed. However, there exist two different issues here:

1. In order to properly adapt LOTR you have to properly understand it because there are so many things you need to modify or cut to turn it into a film. If you have no proper understanding of the book, there's a risk that your hesitations as to the direction to take appears in the film.

2. Notwithstanding any concern about the faithfulness of PJ's adaptation, PJ's films as a whole are not thematically and stylistically coherent. They sometimes seem to escape from PJ (both technically and thematically). As his films do not present a coherent vision, and thus represent a superficial approach of important themes, I find them meaningless, although helpful by contrast to better understand Tolkien. The only thing I know for sure about PJ's understanding of his own films is that he wanted them to be entertaining. And as far as entertainment is concerned, he has been coherent, although not always efficient. Not sufficient to be called a great director.

Best thread in ages.

Quote:

PJ is a modernized, MTV-age version of Leone

BINGO!!!!!!!!

But Leone, although sometimes over the top, is always in control of his material. And his last films, OUATI the West and OUATI America, are Kubrick-like in their rigour.

He also develops his themes - regret, love, death - very carefully, using all the tools at his command. Jackson sets up a theme with a scene which he contradicts with another scene five minutes later.

Gandalf brings a message of Hope back to Middle Earth

Oops, now Gandalf is beating up a grief-stricken father, rather than offering him hope.

Now Gandalf is being all hopeless and useless....

No control. No depth of understanding.

IMO, it was ROTK that lost it as far as clarity of vision is concerned. You'll note that in the above example, it isn't until ROTK that Gandalf's character becomes rather murky.

Hey QB!

Have you seen Once Upon a Time the Revolution (the extended, newly issued version)? It is a great film. Quite strange also, where you actually see within the film Leone's transformation from a maverick and somewhat juvenile spaghetti western filmmaker to a filmmaker dealing with time, remembrance and death. Great, lyrical, score by Morricone too of course.

I love OUATI America. It is Proust (remembrance of things past in America) meeting Kubrick (the precision of the narrative mechanism).

Agreed about ROTK being the "murkiest" of all three films, Yov. Overstuffed and uncontrolled narrative threads do that to films.

... I'm really in over my head here.

Nontheless:

Quote:

2. Notwithstanding any concern about the faithfulness of PJ's adaptation, PJ's films as a whole are not thematically and stylistically coherent. They sometimes seem to escape from PJ (both technically and thematically). As his films do not present a coherent vision, and thus represent a superficial approach of important themes, I find them meaningless, although helpful by contrast to better understand Tolkien. The only thing I know for sure about PJ's understanding of his own films is that he wanted them to be entertaining. And as far as entertainment is concerned, he has been coherent, although not always efficient. Not sufficient to be called a great director.

Semprini, no-one with even half a brain will deny that your criticism of Peter Jackson's directorial abilities are valid. He is not a 'great' director.
(My concept of a great director is Ingmar Bergman not Sergio Leone, btw)
Jackson has all of the faults you list in abundance ... it sometimes makes for painful watching ... most especially in ROTK which I consider the least coherant of all three films. And yet, I would venture to say that a majority on this board, most of whom come fully equipped with superior intellect and discerning taste, find some intangible which transcends PJ's flawed vision and inferior abilities.

That transcendance cannot alone be explained by our knowledge of the source. I lack your grasp of filmic nomenclature but I am quite aware of
inconsistencies and clumsy editing. I am quite aware of PJ's self-idulgence and yet ... and yet ... these films soar in so many ways, in so many places, they bring Middle Earth to life. Tolkien's Middle Earth.

The sum is greater than its parts.
.
.
.
.
It goes without saying that I disagree with your perception of Arwen's Fate as a, what did you call it ... 'a complex of culture' and the generally accepted understanding of Tolkien's deathlessness. Despite his stating that death is a gift. My personal, very subjective, belief is that Tolkien was trying to come to grips with mortality in the only way he knew how.
And not terribly successfully, either.

Quote:

...which transcends PJ's flawed vision and inferior abilities.

I don't think his abilities are at all inferior. He is obviously quite capable of excellent high art, I'm just not that sure he's interested in making high art.

yovargas wrote:

Quote:

...which transcends PJ's flawed vision and inferior abilities.

I don't think his abilities are at all inferior. He is obviously quite capable of excellent high art, I'm just not that sure he's interested in making high art.

Sorry. That was badly worded. What I meant was that despite the flaws (which you have to admit, ARE there) and despite Semprini, Jn et al considering PJ an inferior director .... enough of us respond positively to the films and some of us (me included) find much that is transcendant.

What PJ is not, imo, is mediocre. The mere fact that the films were not dismissed out of hand as boring failures proves that whether or not he is considered below average (Jn) or unable to provide a consistent theme (Semprini) both the power and beauty of Tolkien's LOTR are there. Enough to invoke recognition and enough to provoke discussion.

High art is a matter of taste, surely. Objective criteria notwithstanding.

Semprini: PS: Spielberg did not direct The Goonies.

I should have googled that! Well, any early work of Spielberg then.

Yov: It's like complaining that Dali's use of light isn't more like Monet's. Totally different styles.

Mmm, I disagree that comparison cannot be made. Both made use of an outlining technique ... Monet underlined his water lillies with opposite colors on the color chart to create the optical illusion that they would float right off the canvas. Dali outlined his figures with light, the pale etheric aura that can be glimpsed when a human being appears against a blank background. This fit his liberal spacing very nicely, and though I've never read Dali to say that he got the idea from Monet, Dali was an early student of the Impressionists and using an equivalent technique to Monet suggests this influence to me. They achieved different ends with the technique, but because the technique itself is so similar I think one can talk about its differential impact in their paintings.

PJ didn't need a coherent understanding of what Tolkien tried to do, he needed a coherent understanding of what he was trying to do.

I do agree that the latter is the more important of the two.

Sass: That transcendance cannot alone be explained by our knowledge of the source.

Well, I think there are moments in PJ's films that reach the heights of the greatest directors, and those moments sustain many of us. And the sheer grandness of the scale - that he did not abbreviate the story much - was just a huge gift to fans.

What PJ is not, imo, is mediocre. The mere fact that the films were not dismissed out of hand as boring failures proves that whether or not he is considered below average (Jn) ...

Now I feel I have to add the qualifier every time I'm quoted on this ... below average among those film maker who attempt epic projects or can boast a large body of consistently praised commercial work. I don't want to bother comparing PJ to the mountain of boring failures out there because I don't go to their movies at all, but he's clearly way ahead of that pack.

Jn

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

“With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me, it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable”.

Lawrence provides a demonstration shortly afterward. Lean is very good at providing us with a statement of what is important in what is about to happen and following the idea through to a consistent conclusion.

Funny, I was thinking about the 'demonstration' as one scene that shows just how finely honed Lean's craft was ... it's the "no prisoners" scene, right?

Yes, that is where Lean is taking us, but as he is prone to do, he makes some comments along the way. Lawrence returns with his bodyguard of mercenaries and is challanged by Sherif Ali. The change in Lawrence is thus announced and it soon leads into the "no prisoners" scene.

This brings up a quibble I have with Lean. His guidance may be helpful through the first viewing(s) of a film, but it eventually seems tedious. I think these are your "multiple landing zones".

I agree with your point on perspective. Lawrence starts out thinking he is in control and it gradually slips away. This realization proceeds through several stages, so that we are sure to get the point, culminating in his dismissal at the meeting at the end in which the real outcome of Arabia will be settled.

This is exactly what PJ is missing. PJ does well with the indivdual episodes, but makes no attempt to assemple them into a coherent whole. I think Yov is correct in saying that TTT differs from the other 2 in having some coherence within itself. I'm glad to see that makes it the best of the films for him, which confirms the importance of coherence.


I'll never catch up with you, at this rate.

Great comments all around. This is just the type of things I was hoping for.

Semprini, I would like to address your comments about Tolkien's themes about death and deathlessness, but I don't have the time right now, and I'm not sure that this is the correct place. I may start a separate thread on that subject.

Voronwe, (August 21 1205AM)

Quote:

Quote:

Jnyusa wrote:
My impression of PJ is that he takes a more episodic approach throughout - not just in FotR as we were discussing in the other thread but in all three movies. The scenes do not lean upon one another for meaning. Each one is self-contained, exploited for maximum coolness, and whether it makes sense in a larger context does not matter much to PJ. The seams really show in his movies.

Jn, I understand what you mean here, and I agree to some extent, but in other ways I disagree. There is no question that PJ's approach is episodic. But I disagree that the scenes do not lean upon each other for meaning. This is one area where I really do believe that watching all three extended editions in close sequence really makes a big difference.

You are correct that viewing them together helps tremendously, especialy with TTT which is trucated at both ends, otherwise. However, I don't think there is enough coherence within a single film. This is the importance of comparing PJ with Lean. Lean always informs you of where the main character is headed. You don't know how he will present this to you, but you are in no danger of getting lost. With PJ I didn't feel like I knew where I was headed and this is being said by someone with a 20 year head start with the source material. I don't disagree that he took us to sublime places that Lean or Kubrick might not have.

Let me try another approach. I love long drives through the countryside. I actually prefer to meander, but when I have a destination and a time limit (the end of the film) I'm not in control, the director is. With PJ I feel like I'm in a road rally, with no clear idea of where I will end up or when, hopping back and forth on his whim. I'm too busy navigatiting to appreciate the trip. Lean takes me on a guided tour. PJ keeps me focused on the instructions for getting somewhere and Lean leaves me with the an understanding of where I have been along the way.

A director has an obligation to himself, his actors, his crew, and but most importantly to his audience. The project should not be a self-indulgenent romp. What frustrates me is that for large parts of the films I think he understood this and handled his responsibility well. He proved it was in his power to create better films, but he chose not to.


Like you, I'm not comfortable discussing the camera angles and approaches. I do appreciate Kubrick's use of the camera and while I liked PJ's Beacon's, I felt it wasn't quite right. I can't explain what feels wrong. I think done more slowly and at a higher altitude, it would have seemed better, but it would have lost a sense of urgency that he may have needed to convey.

Jnyusa,

I agree the Argonath were handled well. Not just well, but perfectly! Another example of what frustrates me. PJ knows how to do things correctly.

Voronwe,

Quote:

Whether PJ will develop that kind of maturity is an open question; it is much too early in his career to make that judgment.

I seriously doubt PJ will change much. First, he has made enough films I think he has stabilised. He is about where Lean was in his career with Brief Encounter. Second, he has been rewarded for his current behavior, which will reinforce it, not improve it.

I don't mean to say I'm not impressed by PJ's work. No one will ever top his organizational skills. Getting the funding was phenomenal, collecting the resources was phenomenal, and managing the resources was a miracle. In spite of my problems with PJ and a few of his artistic choices, he is a major force and it is too early for us to judge his place in filmdom, even if he ends his career now. There is no one like him.

(gasp)

Edit

Voronwe,

We have discussed death and deathlessness before in several ways and no reached a conclusion. I would appreciate a thread on it, since this is the core of Tolkien's work.

Sassafras wrote:

I am quite aware of PJ's self-idulgence and yet ... and yet ... these films soar in so many ways, in so many places, they bring Middle Earth to life. Tolkien's Middle Earth. The sum is greater than its parts.

These films soar in some places: yes, I would agree with that. But as I said above, this is not what matters to me. To me, what matters is whether they soar, as a whole. And when I look back at them, when I consider them as a finished story, a finished work, I find them marred by so many inconsistencies, so many problems, so many ill-advised judgements, that I find no transcendental value in them, no value redeeming their many flaws.

I believe that what matters in Art, is the finished work, not its parts, ie, what you remember from it the moment in time when you no longer experience the work of Art. It is only when you consider a work of Art as a whole that you can define it, grasp its meaning, understand the story it is telling you. PJ's films tell me no clear story. If they do tell to you a beautiful and clear story, then, I can only say that I am happy for you.

PS: Agreed of course for Bergman being a greater director than Leone (Leone is not at all one of my favorite directors although as I said above, I love his two last films). But Bergman requires a hard stomach. It is almost physically difficult to watch his films because his lucidity about human nature is akin to cruelty and coldness (I don't think I have watched a film as cruel as Cries and Whispers, for example).

Idylle wrote:

In spite of my problems with PJ and a few of his artistic choices, he is a major force and it is too early for us to judge his place in filmdom, even if he ends his career now. There is no one like him.

I, for one, am quite happy that there is no one like PJ.

Great epic filmmaking requires in particular to grasp the value and beauty of contemplation, although some may find this statement paradoxical. In general, PJ does not know how to do real contemplation; ie, the silent contemplation, except for the rustling of nature, the contemplation without a bombastic score, the contemplation with a still or slowly moving camera, the contemplation conveyed by actors with impenetrable, inscrutable, faces, the contemplation with restraint and grace (although grace may be just another word for restraint), in other words, the contemplation which brings you out of the world. It would be an interesting experience to watch back to back Tarkovsky's Andrey Rublev and PJ's LOTR. It would be like pitching against each other contemplation and action, Water and Fire, stillness and restlessness, the whole and the details, life encompassing all, both inside and outside of the film/the world and life within the film/the world. It could almost turn out to be a philosophical experience. Any takers?

Jn wrote:

Well, any early work of Spielberg then.

You know, I am not sure that Schindler's List is that much better than Duel, Jaws or Close Encounter of the Third Kind, which are all excellent films. But it is certainly a film with a different purpose and a different vision.

Voronwe, I would be happy to discuss deathlessness in another thread, ...provided I will have the time !

Quote:

below average among those film maker who attempt epic projects or can boast a large body of consistently praised commercial work.

Depends on what you call average, Jnyusa. I don't agree at all that he's below average. He's certainly below top-class. I personally think that what he is, is below our expectations, which is a completely different thing. He's most definitely below mine. Now to be fair, my expectations were incredibly high.
(Now, WETA workshop was above my expectations. The incredible technical rendition of ME and all characters inside it were absolutely perfect. PJ did not flunk that, and right he was. At no moment do we have to "suspend disbelief" to get in the story (hmm, aside from the dreaded POTD maybe, and a few dreadful horse mistakes, but then I'm used to that, being a horse professional.Nobody else would see it). That point may not seem important, but since we're dealing with fantasy, my view is that it is.The whole thing would have been a farce if that hadn't been taken seriously to the last dress button.)

Quote:

In general, PJ does not know how to do real contemplation; ie, the silent contemplation, except for the rustling of nature, the contemplation without a bombastic score, the contemplation with a still or slowly moving camera, the contemplation conveyed by actors with impenetrable, inscrutable, faces, the contemplation with restraint and grace (although grace may be just another word for restraint), in other words, the contemplation which brings you out of the world.

He is a bit like a teenager on a video game shooting spree, isn't he?
I've finally come to the conclusion that only a japanese or chinese director would be able to render LOTR properly, the way you describe it, Semprini (And which I agree with). I can think of no western director with the necessary grandeur and restraint tied together. If you haven't yet seen Hero, Twilight Samurai, or Casshern for example, you may go watch them and see what I mean by it (they've nothing to do with Tolkien. I find they all have a directing style that may suit the legend, that's all)

I'll come back with some useful arguments to this discussion when I can put them together

Semprini: Any takers?

I watched Andrey Rublev fairly recently, six months ago perhaps. Then the art video store in my neighborhood went out of business.

In truth, that was too much contemplation for my taste. I think I was expecting more of a building block style, more like Eisenstein where all the scenes eventually dovetail, so some of the metaphors and disconnected images left me confused, even after several viewings.

But you're right that the contrast is stark.

I am not sure that Schindler's List is that much better than Duel ...

I personally dislike Schindler's List, but not because of the cinematography, which was pretty much flawless to my eye.

Niamh: I haven't seen the films of the directors you mentioned, but it might be interesting for us to list here the directors that we think deserve the "10" .... and the one's who deserve the "5" as well ... to see where most of us would place PJ after all.

The Greats mentioned so far: Ford, Bergman, Lean, Kurosawa ... and where do Leone and Kubrick fit in ... somewhere below that, I think.

Others we've discussed at various time: Visconti, the Russians Eisenstein and Tarkovsky ... those with better memories can help me out.

I'm curious how Semprini would categorize some the best-loved directors, where he thinks they stand in relation to one another.

Jn