Best Wishes

Philipp

Frankly I'm tired of Shyamalan's insistence of static shots, long pauses and dragggggging things out. His movies are like 120 minutes of foreplay followed by a 5 second sloppy orgasm.

Delibertately directing a film with no style is not in fact a directorial style.

Shyamalan is an OUTSTANDING director, a true story-teller that pulls you in and keeps you there. His visual style is third to Ridley Scott and David Fincher in my book and he brings out the best in James Newton Howard...Signs, Unbreakable and Sixth Sense are all masterful works.

Granted, he doesn't over-use Matrix-style effects, or shoot everything in sight...so I guess some people just might not like him.

Joe
NP - King Solomon's Mines (Goldsmith)

What I really do like about Shyamalan is his writing. He has a great talent for taking a genre normally considered campy and turning it into a potentially very moving domestic drama. But I think his films would be much improved if he let someone else direct them. His handling of actors is atrocious. Characters in his films tend to say every line as if it were the most important thing they've ever said, regardless of the significance or insignificance of the dialogue.

And I think Ryan hit the nail on the head when he made his orgasm analogy (though I would have expressed it differently myself). Shyamalan simply does not know how to make a scene feel climactic. James Newton Howard generally does his best to make up for it, but it's not enough. At least, it's not enough for me...the general movie-going public isn't as picky as I am, but I already knew that.

In any case, Howard's scores for these films are generally quite good, so I look forward to The Woods for at least that much.

Fincher has to make one more movie like SEVEN to prove he's legit.

Shyamalan needs to learn the language of cinematic pacing. There's something you learn as a filmmaker: when to hold and when to move on and Shymalan did not demonstrate this knowledge in SIGNS, a movie that could have really shook the Earth had it been edited with audiences in mind. Instead it comes off as self-indulgence.

The director is showing us how he is NOT directing this movie. What-ever! He's doing the exact opposite. By deliberately withholding a pay-off or not showing something, the director is not any closer to "art" then the guy making direct-to-video slasher pictures. He's basically hijacking an otherwise enjoyable picture in an attempt to dress it up as important.

SIGNS is at it's heart a scary alien invasion picture that is dead in the water on a second viewing. You have to slog through an hour of pseudo-faith rhetoric. There's nothing wrong with the films themes and I applaud the depth of the picture, but it could at least be paced with some zip.

He's never been my number one, favorite director, but Steven Spielberg knows the language of popular film better then any director alive. His films have depth AND move and he never hijacks his pictures even though he is always the star of the show.

I thought The Sixth Sense was competent enough, if highly overrated, and Unbreakable was plain laughable.

I found both to be somewhat plodding with novelty twist endings, little real visual sense and rather mundane performances on the whole from actors who have done far better work as a matter of routine elsewhere.

As for Spielberg, if he makes more films like AI and the first two thirds of Minority Report, he'll shoot back towards the top of the list. Those two films were a breath of fresh air, for Spielberg and for John Williams.

As I did in a previous thread, I will make note that Shyamalan's films are making a great deal of money...so he MUST be doing something right.

Ryan...are you a filmmaker? If so, then I don't understand what you are saying...because it makes no sense...if you aren't, then why are you speaking as if you are? Again, you make absolutely NO sense whatsoever.

David Fincher...NOT legit???? Obviously you live in an alternate reality not shared by the rest of this world...because that is just an amazingly ridiculous stament to make and...AGAIN...makes no sense.

I do agree with you that Ridley is a visual genius. In my opinion, he attempts to make the audience forget how bland some of the stories are to the movies he directs. I don't believe he has a great flair for what audiences want to see (except lately...Legend failed financially, as did Someone to Watch Over Me...not sure how G.I. Jane did, but I don't think it was much of a hit).

Shayamalan's pacing is slow, deliberate and meant to bring the audience INTO the film. He does not use Ridley's visual tricks (which would pull you out and announce the director quite loudly).

A filmmaker, Ryan, can NOT learn about pacing from a classroom exercise...you do not LEARN how to pace a script...pacing is an instinctual part of storytelling...you're born with it.

You state, Ryan, that SIGNS could have been Earth-shattering...you obviously missed the entire point of the story...it was not MEANT to be Earth-shattering. The only self-indulgent thing here is YOU...not self-indulgent, but rather self-important. Allow me to illustrate a point where I felt much the same way about a film as you do about SIGNS...my example being SLEEPY HOLLOW. In my opinion...this is DRECK...total crap...what could have been a completely TERRIFYING film was an exercise in slapstick that failed miserably on every point (except for Elfman's over-the-top score...which I thought was wonderful). Burton is one of the most over-rated directors working today. He's basically hijacking what could be an enjoyable film in an attempt to make it up as something it's not.

SIGNS is NOT a scary alien invasion picture...again, you have no idea what the film was trying to say...the alien was ALWAYS a side effect...something to galvanize the main character and the M.C.'s family into accepting faith. Pacing it "with some zip" would have made the characters more shallow...and increased the alien aspect of the film...making it into something it wasn't supposed to be.

I agree completely with your statement that Spielberg, more than any other director, is in tune with popular culture....hell...the man practically defines it...but you are SO WRONG when you say he never hijacks his pictures. A director...a FILMMAKER, will ALWAYS be hijacking his films if the movie itself is sublimated by the director's (or whoever's) ego. I submit that there have been several films (A.I. most recently) where the story has taken second fiddle to the director (in A.I.'s case, the story was more important than even the director...it placed a DEAD director ahead of it!!).

Ryan, you are nothing more than a film critic...NOT a filmmaker. Don't speak as if you are one of us without having something substantive to back it up with. Your statments were mostly non-sensical and, if this comes across as being a vicious attack...I apologize...but I will not let people who know not what they speak of, speak as if they do, without calling them on it. IF you ARE a filmmaker...then you either went to a lousy school...or you didn't listen in class. (Watching Citizen Kane a dozen times does NOT make you a filmmaker, either).

Joe

Just a qualification. Directors are doing something right if their films are good. Whether critical establishments are in favor of their film or whether audiences approve is NOT isomorphic to the quality of the film. Take as case in point every Kubrick film since 2001 - what once were pentannual oddities that floundered critics and audiences alike are now classic pieces of cinema (Eyes Wide Shut will get their one day). Who got it wrong?

So just because Shyalaman's film make money may say nothing more than the obvious fact that films with stars get more than adequate marketing budgets - and like Kubrick, Shyalaman always has more than a few shots that are extremely trailer worthy. I still hold that he makes great films, as I've never seen a trailer for one of his films before the film itself - the concept is always enough, and he certainly knows how to resolve whatever concept he lays out.

All that aside, Joe, I think some of your remarks intended for Ryan unfortunately stick to all of us. WE ARE, NONE OF US, FILM-MAKERS. (At least of the caliber that we discuss here - and if anyone is, reveal yourself, imposter!) We are, all of us, addicts of a product called entertainment that has no small number of peddlers. Some of us find certain peddlers give us low grade product, and the addict in us is far from satisfied. Others of us find the same drugs revelatory. Is it a question of quality, or a difference of opinion? Because if it is only the latter, it seems to me it's hardly a thing worth starting a fight over. And if it's the former, tirades in the name of true perception are notoriously poor in gaining converts.

Let's call it a difference of opinion then, and when people disagree over a matter of opinion, changing the subject always helps. And since we all seem to like Ridley Scott, how about we talk about him for a while?

There is no direct link between quality and financial success in the movie industry.

Ryan...are you a filmmaker? If so, then I don't understand what you are saying...because it makes no sense...if you aren't, then why are you speaking as if you are? Again, you make absolutely NO sense whatsoever.

I graduated from film school, so I think I know a little bit about how movies are made, from the ground up. I can watch movies and see things that folks who did not study film do not see. When I watch Shyamalan's pictures I see problems. He's not alone -- a lot of other directors out there are making mistakes and smoothing them over, never to be registerd by the general populace.

Am I highly enlightened? Not really. But I am attuned to a picture as it unwinds.

David Fincher...NOT legit???? Obviously you live in an alternate reality not shared by the rest of this world...

I don't expect the rest of the world to agree with anything I say!

If you look at the films David Fincher has made (not including his moving Madonna videos, ahem) you'll see an uneven track record.

SEVEN, his debut is his best. THE GAME stumbles a bit from a slow pace and poor casting (Deborah Kara Unger). ALIEN 3 is a severely compromised picture. FIGHT CLUB is one of those films that can be regarded as a total failure or brilliant, and I'm not sure how I feel about it. PANIC ROOM is a non-event whose only highpoint is some showy camera moves that are cool to look at but really cannot sustain a two-hour film.

I don't believe he has a great flair for what audiences want to see

It's not up to a film director to decide what people want to see. That's the studio development executive's job. Ridley merely ushers the project through production as the director. He delivers his vision. Whether or not it fits in with the current trends of body-switching, gender-bending Rob Schneider comedies or pie-****ing teenage fatties, is not his concern. Nor should it be any filmmakers concern, particularly those who try to inject a little art into their films, not just make them look nice.

Shayamalan's pacing is slow, deliberate and meant to bring the audience INTO the film.

I don't know many people who get into a film once they begin continuously yawning.

A filmmaker, Ryan, can NOT learn about pacing from a classroom exercise...you do not LEARN how to pace a script...pacing is an instinctual part of storytelling...you're born with it.

You can learn pacing -- by sitting in front of a Steenbeck or an Avid system (two things I did do, extensively in school). You can't figure out a films pace while shooting or while writing a script. It's all in the editing stage and that's where the director sits down to cut and refine their movie. They are more involved in this process then any other filmmaking process and it's here where their strengths and weaknesses are revealed.

And you CAN learn how to pace a film. It's not like being born seven feet tall so you can dunk a basketball, it can be a LEARNED attribute.

You state, Ryan, that SIGNS could have been Earth-shattering...you obviously missed the entire point of the story...it was not MEANT to be Earth-shattering.

I'd say that first hand proof of the existence of extra terrestrials would be considering earth-shattering! But it was dulled.

The only self-indulgent thing here is YOU...not self-indulgent, but rather self-important.

Yes, I'm self-important. Ever since M. Night got that gig directing Rose O'Donnell as a nun and I didn't... Damn! If only...

Allow me to illustrate a point where I felt much the same way about a film as you do about SIGNS...my example being SLEEPY HOLLOW. In my opinion...this is DRECK...total crap...what could have been a completely TERRIFYING film was an exercise in slapstick that failed miserably on every point (except for Elfman's over-the-top score...which I thought was wonderful). Burton is one of the most over-rated directors working today. He's basically hijacking what could be an enjoyable film in an attempt to make it up as something it's not.

This is more like a sketch on a napkin than an illustration. If you want to SERIOUSLY critique a movie, you'll have to ante up. The points I brought up on SIGNS were legit examples. You're summary of SLEEPY HOLLOW is fourth-period spare level.

Which points did it fail? By evoking memories of classic Hammer Horror? Well, it did that right. By trying to create a gorgeous fantasy world? Well, it did that too! By being a living embodiment of the classic Washington Irving story? Having atmosphere and a likeable lead? Did those things too!

SIGNS is NOT a scary alien invasion picture...again, you have no idea what the film was trying to say...the alien was ALWAYS a side effect...something to galvanize the main character and the M.C.'s family into accepting faith.

Uh, no. I never disputed the point of the picture. My problem is with the delivery. Slow, dry and with no style.

Pacing it "with some zip" would have made the characters more shallow...and increased the alien aspect of the film...making it into something it wasn't supposed to be.

No - pacing it with zip would have made it 10-15 mins. shorter.

Ryan, you are nothing more than a film critic...NOT a filmmaker. Don't speak as if you are one of us without having something substantive to back it up with.

"One of us"? What? I never would have guessed you have any film education or experience...

Your statments were mostly non-sensical and, if this comes across as being a vicious attack...I apologize...but I will not let people who know not what they speak of, speak as if they do, without calling them on it.

You're truly in your own little world, aren't you? I think everything I've said makes perfect sense. The only one having a hard time with it is you, for some reason only known by... You.

The term "nonsensical" would denote inane ramblings with little or no direction. I think I've made my points quite clear! It's unfortunate that you have to shine Shyamalan's boots, but whatever makes you feel worthwhile.

IF you ARE a filmmaker...then you either went to a lousy school...or you didn't listen in class.

I listened in class, and I absorbed it all. It's like riding a bike. Once you know how a movie is made, how they work, understand them from the inside out, you can never turn that knowledge off.

We can disagree on whether or not we like Shyamalan, but I do not believe SIGNS had a story that could be misconstrued.

Again, you have the totally wrong idea of what my point was. Perhaps you should go back and re-read my post? Because my beef is with the pacing of the film, not the plot or the story or the themes.

Once upon a time people treasured directors who took their time to build mood and character. And, boy, how great to find a one who knows how to use QUIET to such great effect!

At the same time, yes, it would indeed be interesting to see him break out of his chosen genre, just to see how he would fare at something in a different vein.

[Message edited by Vinylscrubber on 07-06-2003]

I suppose with all the interesting posters already entrenched there, a la the guy who asked "Why was Matrix 2 so crap?" et al, they don't need my contributions.

At least Peter Kelly extended the courtesy of allowing me here. Kudos to Peter!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vinylscrubber:
It's a shame that so much film-making today is catered to the attention-deficit crowd.

Once upon a time people treasured directors who took their time to build mood and character. And, boy, how great to find a one who knows how to use QUIET to such great effect!

---

Normally I'd agree with what you're saying, but I don't think that comment makes a whole lot of sense in the context of this discussion if you look at how financially successful Shyamalan's movies have been. People love them. One more success, I think, and people will "treasure" this director. Many already do.

I still think Shyamalan has a lot to learn. There are some people who seem to think he was born to make movies, that it's his inevitable destiny to be the next big thing. I simply don't subscribe to that. Joe states that a filmmaker can't learn about pacing from a classroom and that it's all instincual, something you're born with, but that's a load of tripe as far as I'm concerned. If it's true, then why did Shyamalan go to film school in the first place? If he's really that good, why didn't he just skip it and go straight to making movies?

No, pacing is most definitely something you learn. Yes, there are those who have that one masterpiece that seems not to have been written so much as merely transcribed from the very voice of God, but lightning like that (i.e., The Sixth Sense) does not strike twice.

In the words of Robert Wise, "Pace does not necessarily mean just speed. Pace is interest." And that's the stinger. It's not that I think Signs is long...I don't even think it's that slow, to tell you the truth. I simply think it's uninteresting, and as I stated before, I know that my interests don't always match up with most moviegoers' interests. And Signs was most certainly made with most moviegoers in mind.

I don't think I fall into the attention-deficit crowd, since I'm pretty sure some of my favorite movies like The Seventh Seal, The Straight Story, and Koyaanisqatsi wouldn't be able to keep them occupied. I simply sense what I feel is a legitimate pacing problem with Shyamalan's films.

Of course, like I also stated above, I don't think Shyamalan's pacing is the worst of his problems. I don't like his heavy-handedness, the way he makes his actors speak in gravely serious tones (which makes the moments of humor seem very out of place) no matter how inconsequential the dialogue is, and his ineptness with handling the climax of a film. Basically, I don't like anything he does as a director. If he stopped himself at the script (he could produce, too) and gave it to a different director with a better sense of what makes a good script a great movie, I think we would have had three masterpieces by now instead of just one.

But of course, his movies make lots and lots of money, so that's not going to happen unless his next three or four movies are all terrible flops at the box office.

Now, to comment on your replies to my replies to your comments:

"There is no direct link between quality and financial success in the movie industry."

I never said there WAS a link. I totally agree that there is NO link...what my statement suggests is that Shyamalan has a pretty decent idea of what the public wants to see...and technically, I believe, he succeeds in delivering his stories successfully to the movie going audience.

"I graduated from film school, so I think I know a little bit about how movies are made, from the ground up. I can watch movies and see things that folks who did not study film do not see. When I watch Shyamalan's pictures I see problems. He's not alone -- a lot of other directors out there are making mistakes and smoothing them over, never to be registerd by the general populace."

Congrats on graduating from film school, Ryan. I know that it isn't an easy endeavor, so I applaud those who manage it and move on to further their careers in the business. As to there being problems in Shyamalan's films...I won't dispute that. There are an EXTREMELY few number of films that do NOT have problems in some form or another. I do not go to a film expecting perfection...I go to be entertained. Although, I can say that some problems (especially continuity problems) can take me out fo a story and annoy me (Horner's re-use of his own music is a prime example of something that will now ALWAYS take me out of the story I am in...but that isn't NECESSARILY a problem.), most of the time I don't notice them on first viewing (repeated viewings are meant to explore the film on a more technical level). They have to be BLATANT problems for me to see them on first viewing. As someone who SEEMS to be more interested in films only from a technical aspect, it is appropriate for you to hinge your opinions on the technicalities, rather than the pure enjoyment of it. I sincerely hope this never happens to me...even as a filmmaker, I want to do it for the pure thrill of being transported away...perhaps that is my failing.

"SEVEN, his debut is his best. THE GAME stumbles a bit from a slow pace and poor casting (Deborah Kara Unger). ALIEN 3 is a severely compromised picture. FIGHT CLUB is one of those films that can be regarded as a total failure or brilliant, and I'm not sure how I feel about it. PANIC ROOM is a non-event whose only highpoint is some showy camera moves that are cool to look at but really cannot sustain a two-hour film."

Se7en is a superior film...but Alien3 was Fincher's feature film debut....not Se7en. Alien3 was, indeed, a severely compromised film...and I hope his director's cut is among the reissues coming out later this year of the Alien series. Fingers are crossed. I enjoyed THE GAME...and yes, I will agree that the film was slowly paced and I wanted it to pick things up a bit. I really didn't want to watch FIGHT CLUB...ended up watching it with friends on DVD...I thought it was a good film...visually entrancing (Fincher has, in the past, credited Ridley Scott as an inspiration). PANIC ROOM was a tense thriller...and again, I will agree with you that it was more about style than substance...I also agree that it shouldn't have been a two hour film...90 minutes would have worked out okay for me though. To tie this in to my earlier thoughts, I enjoy Fincher's movies...and end up being more impressed later by his technical expertise. Bottom line, and I think you will agree with me wholeheartedly on this, Ryan, a great film is only great because of the script. And of all the Fincher films discussed, Se7en had the tightest script and was, thus far, Fincher's best all around film.

"It's not up to a film director to decide what people want to see. That's the studio development executive's job."

Agreed...however, a good film director will ALWAYS keep in mind what people want to see when he or she chooses a project...or risk not working much afterwards. Hollywood is a business...and the business leaks into all facets of filmmaking...again, I believe you would agree with me completely on this matter. When a filmmaker tries to inject art (i.e. his own personal style and creative impetus) into his film, I applaud his efforts, knowing how difficult that can be...especially for a director who is not yet established.

"I don't know many people who get into a film once they begin continuously yawning."

I never yawned...and judging by the reaction of the audience...few others did either.

"You can learn pacing -- by sitting in front of a Steenbeck or an Avid system (two things I did do, extensively in school). You can't figure out a films pace while shooting or while writing a script. It's all in the editing stage and that's where the director sits down to cut and refine their movie. They are more involved in this process then any other filmmaking process and it's here where their strengths and weaknesses are revealed."

TECHNICALLY, you can "learn" pacing. My point was to suggest that pacing is something inherent in a story-teller's natural ability. He either knows how to tell a story correctly or he doesn't. Pacing comes in the actual shooting of the scenes. The editing process merely puts those scenes into a coherently told storyline. If scenes are not shot with an idea of how to integrate them into the WHOLE...nothing an editor can do will fix it. The final result will be choppy and difficult to watch (without reshoots, of course). A director who doesn't know how to tell a good story can be saved by a creative editor, but the film will suffer in any event. I think Shyamalan is a good story teller. I think Fincher and Scott are good visual story tellers. Spielberg is a master at the process and I don't think you can argue that having a good editor is paramount to having a well crafted film (coherently-told story).

"I'd say that first hand proof of the existence of extra terrestrials would be considering earth-shattering! But it was dulled."

Intentionally so. The STORY was not so much about the existance of extra-terrestrials as it was about one man's loss of faith and his attempt to get that faith back. The ETs were the catalyst for that self-discovery. If it HAD been about the ETs, the film would have more resembled ID4 (the aliens took up the brunt of that story...the character's stories fueled their actions in dealing with the invaders...and the casting just was all wrong...from Goldblum on down...the characters, to me, just were not engaging...but the movie was a hoot, that's for sure!).

"Yes, I'm self-important..."

I deeply apologize for those remarks. We are ALL, to an extent, self-important...and I sure come across that way when prostelitizing to others about how they come across. Sometimes, my own misguided emotional response gets in the way of what I am trying to say...and I take responsibility for that. When two people have such a passionate feeling about something...they sometimes forget that there are still many things upon which they CAN agree....lost in the attempt to convince the other that his position is the ONLY correct one.

re: SLEEPY HOLLOW - "Which points did it fail? By evoking memories of classic Hammer Horror? Well, it did that right. By trying to create a gorgeous fantasy world? Well, it did that too! By being a living embodiment of the classic Washington Irving story? Having atmosphere and a likeable lead? Did those things too!"

I don't think it DID invoke classic Hammer Horror. I think the set design was well crafted, the atmosphere and mood the film evoked were excellent. Yes, I totally agree there. The film failed for me...COMPLETELY...with the Ichabod Crane charater and Johnny Depp's performance of that character. Ichabod was a school teacher, NOT an investigator. He was NOT a clutz and incompetant, as Depp's portrayal made it out to be. This was the FARTHEST thing a film could be from being the living embodiment of the classic story by Irving. Irving's story was horrific...Burton's film was a farce...in my personal opinion...a disastrous failure. ONLY because of Burton and Depp's rendition of Crane. This is the one place where they failed for me, but seeing as the story was about Ichabod Crane, it was a fatal flaw. I truly wanted to be horrified. I sure didn't want to be embarassed...which I was.

I am not trying to convince you to join my side, Ryan. What you have said makes perfect sense...to you. I agree on some points and disagree on others. Others on this board obviously agree with me...and some agree with you. Such is life. I was wrong to classify your comments as non-sensical. My emotions got carried away and that was my mistake. I wouldn't go so far as to say I shine Shyamalan's boots...but if it got me a Hollywood deal, I'd consider it... As for feeling worthwhile, I'll ask my therapist.

"I listened in class, and I absorbed it all. It's like riding a bike. Once you know how a movie is made, how they work, understand them from the inside out, you can never turn that knowledge off."

I was being an *******. I apologize. And I agree with the above statement.

"Again, you have the totally wrong idea of what my point was. Perhaps you should go back and re-read my post? Because my beef is with the pacing of the film, not the plot or the story or the themes."

MY point is that STORY dictates pacing in many instances. A story about a man dealing with a loss of faith will be character driven, slowly-paced...as opposed to an alien invasion story that will be a heart-pumping thrill ride.

Are we on the same page, Mr. Keaveney? I hope so. You seem like a very intelligent person and I would be interested in learning more about which aspects of filmmaking interest you the most. Furhter, I would like to extend to you an opportunity to discuss filmmaking more with me via personal email if you wish to do so. I am always interested in meeting fellow filmmakers, not only to learn more about their personal approach, but to continue making networking connections (something Film School is usually VERY good for...yes?).

I wish you well...in fact, I wish everyone well. However, I had best get back to work at my bill-paying job...

The one thing that always gets me is that we (whether you graduated from film school or not) tend to think we know the flaws in every film, how to correct them, and how we could have done a better job. The same goes for composers as well. Last time I checked the professionals in these fields don't post here.

Now, I'm not saying that we can't have our opinions (far from it), but the tone of some of these posts pushes the envelope. Here's my vanilla/retarded view of three directors at hand:

M.Night: A great storyteller, who is bogged down with his Sixth Sense convention. He manages to make the ordinary compelling which is not an easy thing to do.

Spielberg: A great director, but his syrup gets a little trying at times. I have more respect for him of late with his attempts to branch out in terms of style. Case in point A.I. and Minority Report. But please...someone help him with his lighting.

Fincher: Least enamored. Seven was obviously his best work as most would agree, but please...like Spielberg, branch out. We get it...you dig the dark. Move on.