|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 12, 2024 18:38:46 GMT
It's not about Polanski being a worse person in general, because the things that we deride him for have nothing to do with the making or creation of Chinatown. This is not me making any sort of moral statement on the filmmakers themselves (because we'd be here all day), but rather about the moral statement of the art created. I would absolutely consider the craft behind Birth of a Nation impressive on a technical level, but utterly rancid in terms of its message. Same with Leni Riefenstahl's oeuvre. Well as I noted Polanski made changes to Towne's script on set and it's pretty obvious his own sexual interest in children informed that especially in light of the fact that Cross died and never gets to Katherine in the original script. Never seen the pre shooting script but wouldn't surprise me if the "some people never have to face the fact that they're capable of anything" line was something Polanski put in. If you wanted to say the movie as a whole was a 1/10 because of the message that's more defensible to me than specifically rating the direction that low. I wouldn't give a good rating to Birth of a Nation on the whole because the racial politics make it a pretty unpleasant watch but just rating the direction I'd have to rate it high because it's well directed like it or not. Well, with Polanski that's speculation fueled by hindsight. And I can understand how that would seem unpleasant or skeevy in retrospect, but watching the film itself, I feel it was more a response to the mores of the early '70s as paranoia and nihilism were starting to bleed into what was perceived as the American dream. I don't know if I would say that Polanski's input was driven by anything more than that, but I wouldn't argue if you felt that it did and found it difficult to remove that element from the film itself. But I do think that On the Waterfront specifically, on its own, is different because it's not subtextual; Kazan specifically was with the project from the very start even before Schulberg got involved, back when Arthur Miller (his friend and collaborator) were talking with Harry Cohn about it, and Miller actually left the project specifically because Kazan named names. So it's not even a simple matter of Kazan directing someone else's script; he was a creative force behind it from the jump. Let it be known: I wouldn't rate Streetcar a 0.5/10. Or even Gentleman's Agreement, which is a much worse movie than On the Waterfront. This vote is specifically in response to it being my feelings on Elia Kazan as a creative voice in the movie. His filmic style and control of actors are laudable as always. But I think you can't have the conversation without acknowledging the ugly truth of what he did and how this movie is him justifying the unjustifiable. If you can look past it, that's fine and I won't argue it. But if you're going to ask me to rate Elia Kazan, you got two ratings from me, and in terms of gauging which one I think should stand, it's the latter because he can handle it. |
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jul 12, 2024 18:42:50 GMT
It's not about Polanski being a worse person in general, because the things that we deride him for have nothing to do with the making or creation of Chinatown. This is not me making any sort of moral statement on the filmmakers themselves (because we'd be here all day), but rather about the moral statement of the art created. I would absolutely consider the craft behind Birth of a Nation impressive on a technical level, but utterly rancid in terms of its message. Same with Leni Riefenstahl's oeuvre. Well as I noted Polanski made changes to Towne's script on set and it's pretty obvious his own sexual interest in children informed that especially in light of the fact that Cross died and never gets to Katherine in the original script. Never seen the pre shooting script but wouldn't surprise me if the "some people never have to face the fact that they're capable of anything" line was something Polanski put in. If you wanted to say the movie as a whole was a 1/10 because of the message that's more defensible to me than specifically rating the direction that low. I wouldn't give a good rating to Birth of a Nation on the whole because the racial politics make it a pretty unpleasant watch but just rating the direction I'd have to rate it high because it's well directed like it or not. Isn't the general read on Polanski changing the ending been that he did so because of his own cynicism following Tate's murder and regret for the fact he wasn't there that night? |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 12, 2024 18:45:16 GMT
Well as I noted Polanski made changes to Towne's script on set and it's pretty obvious his own sexual interest in children informed that especially in light of the fact that Cross died and never gets to Katherine in the original script. Never seen the pre shooting script but wouldn't surprise me if the "some people never have to face the fact that they're capable of anything" line was something Polanski put in. If you wanted to say the movie as a whole was a 1/10 because of the message that's more defensible to me than specifically rating the direction that low. I wouldn't give a good rating to Birth of a Nation on the whole because the racial politics make it a pretty unpleasant watch but just rating the direction I'd have to rate it high because it's well directed like it or not. Isn't the general read on Polanski changing the ending been that he did so because of his own cynicism following Tate's murder and regret for the fact he wasn't there that night? Yeah, the Manson murders are generally considered the end of the '60s "free love/optimism" era, and with Vietnam's escalation and Watergate immediately following, I think Chinatown's bleak ending and morally unconscionable undercurrent is a personal response to that from its filmmaker. It just looks much worse in hindsight. |
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,557 
Likes: 1,651
|
Post by Javi on Jul 12, 2024 19:20:21 GMT
7/10
It isn't directed in a memorable way imo, and he's nowhere as inspired as Brando. Kazan's masterpiece has to be A Streetcar Named Desire... never understood the stagey accusations, the movie oozes atmosphere like practically nothing else from that period and it's full of contrasts and uncomfortable suggestions for an early 50s film (new "realism" vs decrepit poetry, male sexuality vs female "virginity" (a condition not even Leigh can believe in anymore), with sex and violence threatening the whole piece from the corners), and Kazan juggles it all. His Baby Doll pops too--a perfect picaresque, I'd also rate it higher than Waterfront.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 12, 2024 19:35:41 GMT
I really enjoy Kazan's 50s output, but I'll agree it's really hard to disentangle this one from the context of its making & release. I still appreciate the film for its filmmaking (esp. the cinematography and convincingly gritty tone) and for the performances especially from Saint & Malden, but not nearly as much as I used to, and these days I'll take Streetcar or Baby Doll in a heartbeat.
keeping my 7.5 rating but can't argue with anyone rating it low based on the context. You can't always separate the art from the artist. And tbh if you did in this case you'd get an incomplete understanding of the movie's meaning and intent.
|
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Jul 12, 2024 19:36:49 GMT
Add to that, these criticisms have to do with the screenplay, which Kazan didn't write and was itself based on a magazine profile. None of this has anything to do with the quality of how he frames the scenes. Unless you're going to go with the comprehensive "everything in the movie is direction" perspective we talked about before, in which case you might as well just rate the movie. And I've never seen anyone on here give On the Waterfront a 1/10, this is just getting triggered by seeing Kazan's name. But it's not about the screenplay. The screenplay in isolation has nothing to do with anything, it's when it is taken specifically by this man who pours his heart and soul into making this intensely personal thing that it then becomes linked with him, a statement by him, and you are viewing it through his eyes as he chooses to put it up on screen. It's a blurry line, director as author, linking movie intrinsically with moviemaker, framing his initial choice to make the movie as part of his direction, and I agree that it comes close to where you might as well just rate the movie, but I think there's a distinction. If any other director makes that movie the exact same way, you don't look at it the same way as you do if you cannot separate art from artist. His BEING the director is the thing that warps the movie in a direction it would not go if you had no clue who made it... It's like if I get an anonymous text telling me Glenn Close was FANTASTIC in her new movie, and I think "Wow, okay. I got to see this", and then I find out later the text is from TylerDeneuve and suddenly I have to  ... There's nothing wrong with the wording of the text, the subject of the text, or the opinion itself, but the particular derangement of the deliverer! (no 'coming for' was intended in the writing of this post) |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jul 12, 2024 20:27:21 GMT
Well as I noted Polanski made changes to Towne's script on set and it's pretty obvious his own sexual interest in children informed that especially in light of the fact that Cross died and never gets to Katherine in the original script. Never seen the pre shooting script but wouldn't surprise me if the "some people never have to face the fact that they're capable of anything" line was something Polanski put in. If you wanted to say the movie as a whole was a 1/10 because of the message that's more defensible to me than specifically rating the direction that low. I wouldn't give a good rating to Birth of a Nation on the whole because the racial politics make it a pretty unpleasant watch but just rating the direction I'd have to rate it high because it's well directed like it or not. Isn't the general read on Polanski changing the ending been that he did so because of his own cynicism following Tate's murder and regret for the fact he wasn't there that night? Well I'm sure that's what he tells people but it seems like way too big of a coincidence that the crime he was being nihilistic about was child rape. |
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jul 12, 2024 20:33:04 GMT
I really enjoy Kazan's 50s output, but I'll agree it's really hard to disentangle this one from the context of its making & release. I still appreciate the film for its filmmaking (esp. the cinematography and convincingly gritty tone) and for the performances especially from Saint & Malden, but not nearly as much as I used to, and these days I'll take Streetcar or Baby Doll in a heartbeat. keeping my 7.5 rating but can't argue with anyone rating it low based on the context. You can't always separate the art from the artist. And tbh if you did in this case you'd get an incomplete understanding of the movie's meaning and intent.Eh, the film completely works without any context of what Kazan did. In fact you could use it as an example to shame him further, as he himself had to identify with a man fighting against genuine injustice (Organized crime infiltration of Unions) to support the "informer". However, personally I'll say the film works best anyways as the examination of a misspent life. |
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jul 12, 2024 20:42:52 GMT
Didn't win the Oscar, but would you give Chinatown a 0.5 considering Polanski changed the ending so Cross would get away with it? We've got Gone With the Wind coming up which has a significantly worse message than On the Waterfront even if you see it as apologia for the blacklist. Would you give Birth of a Nation's direction a 0.5 when it clearly is not one on a technical level? The big stink everyone in Hollywood makes about Kazan isn't really justified when so many people in Hollywood have done worse things. All these stars made a point of not standing for Kazan when he got an honorary award or something in the 90's but then they all gave Polanski a standing o for winning for The Pianist. That's a bit of a leap given several established names formed the Committee for the First Amendment, which crumbled due to backlash and shows just how strong the Red Scare sentiment was at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jul 12, 2024 20:59:51 GMT
finniussnrubAgree on both points. I saw On the Waterfront in high school and had no idea it had anything to do with the blacklist until years later, it's not baked into the DNA of the film the way race is in Gone With the Wind for example (which I'm still going to rate highly). And if Charlie Chaplin could get blacklisted it could happen to anybody outside of maybe John Wayne (LOL can you imagine).
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 12, 2024 21:07:08 GMT
finniussnrub Agree on both points. I saw On the Waterfront in high school and had no idea it had anything to do with the blacklist until years later, it's not baked into the DNA of the film the way race is in Gone With the Wind for example (which I'm still going to rate highly). And if Charlie Chaplin could get blacklisted it could happen to anybody outside of maybe John Wayne (LOL can you imagine). is going to be its own fascinating kettle of fish when we come to it. I do think it is a monumental achievement in moviemaking, but like you say, it is tainted intrinsically at its very core for being Lost Cause apologia. But it's also Selznick's work even more than I would say it's Fleming's; Fleming was just the guy the studio hired after several other guys were hired and fired. So I wouldn't feel as bad about rating Fleming's work higher than I would Kazan's on that respect alone. |
|
... There's nothing wrong with the wording of the text, the subject of the text, or the opinion itself, but the particular derangement of the deliverer!
