Spielberg. Scorsese. Coppola. Curaon. Nolan. These are but a few of what Hollywood calls "auteur" directors. Men who not just direct their films, but oversee the writing, production, and generally every other aspect of a film's creation. Often their name is all that's needed to get a project green-lighted, regardless of whether it's a blockbuster, art house film, or even *gasp* an original, non-sequel project. These directors, and countless others, have very firm visions in mind when they set out to make a movie. But just because a director has a vision, doesn't necessarily make it good.
"Blasphemy!", some would say. "A director with a firm vision is the key to a film's success!" And normally, I'd agree. Most films live or die by the strength of the director, who should always know what they want out of a film. But then there are those directors who have a little too much vision. And by vision, I mean power. A director with too much power can completely derail a film, if they're not willing to tone down their unique directorial traits and compromise with others. In times like these, as much as I hate to say it, executive power and vision can actually be a boon to a fledgling film. So here we are in a unique situation, where directorial and executive vision are grappling for control.
Why am I ranting about this, especially now? Well, several reasons. There's the matter of the almost month-long panic over Edgar Wright leaving Marvel's "Ant-Man" film, and the scramble for a replacement director. There's today's release of "Transformers: Age of Extinction", directed by a man who's one of the embodiments of too much directorial power. And we can't forget the new "Star Wars" films, with various talented directors hired to helm them. The point is, a director with a strong vision more often than not benefits a film, but it can just as easily destroy it. I'm here to dissect the case for and against directorial vision, to ultimately decide if directors or studios should hold majority power.
Here are the facts about strong directors: they know what they're doing. Either a director pitches a project to a studio and the studio green-lights it for the director alone, or the studio starts the project and hires the director in good confidence. Either way, it shows a belief in the director's vision. The best examples I can give are comparing Steven Spielberg to Joss Whedon. Spielberg is one of the best, if not THE best, directors in Hollywood. He was back in the '70s, and he still is now. Maybe he's not the director that he was when he made "Jaws", "Raiders", or "Jurassic Park", but Spielberg still knows how to craft a well-made film. Spielberg has enough clout in Hollywood to choose his own projects, becoming a true "auteur" director. He's the one who goes to studios; the studios don't approach him.
Joss Whedon, on the other hand, had an enormous cult following pre-"Avengers" but not a lot of experience directing feature length films. Writing them, perhaps, but not directing. His one credit, "Serenity", while solid, didn't make the numbers Universal was expecting. Warner Brothers put him in charge of their "Wonder Woman" project, but it subsequently fell through. But when Disney/Marvel was trying to get "The Avengers" off the ground, they knew Whedon was the man for the job. Not just for the cult following and goodwill from fans, but for his talent at directing ensembles and encyclopedic knowledge of comic books.
Their faith was, of course, well-rewarded, to the tune of over a billion dollars. The main difference between Spielberg and pre-"Avengers" Whedon, though, is that Spielberg could choose his projects, whereas Whedon was a hired gun. But even though Whedon was hired on, he got the gig because Disney/Marvel had faith in his ability to direct, and knew his strong vision would carry their riskiest project to success. No matter if a director can choose his projects or is simply hired to execute a studio-mandated film, a strong vision goes a long way.
There's loads of other directors that can prove this point. Chris Nolan was hired by WB to reboot Batman. A wildly successful trilogy later, and now Nolan is one of the most powerful directors in the business. "Inception", "The Prestige", and "Memento" are all testaments to his strong, singular vision, to say nothing of the hype behind his upcoming film "Interstellar", purely because he's directing it. From hired gun to auteur, this is the true power of directorial vision gone right.
And then there's Martin Scorsese ("Raging Bull," "Taxi Driver," "Goodfellas"). Francis Ford Coppola ("Apocalypse Now," "The Godfather Trilogy"). Woody Allen ("Annie Hall," too many others to list). Akira Kurosawa ("Seven Samurai"). Alfonso Cuaron ("Children of Men," "Gravity"). Stanley Kubrick ("2001," "The Shining," "A Clockwork Orange"). History has shown the power of those who know what they want from their films. Simply put, great cinema is made by great directors. Those who have a clear vision for a film will always be successful. End of story.
Except when it's not. The directors I've listed above, hired or auteur, recognize the power they're given and know how to use it properly. There are some directors out there, either complete hacks or fallen auteurs, who abuse their power and churn out inferior films. Their egos tell them they can do no wrong, so they include everything they want to see at the expense of making a good, streamlined movie. Argument, thy name is Bay. Michael Bay needs no introduction, being the man with the best 'splosions in Hollywood. Bay does make entertaining films, I'll give him that. Films that know exactly what they are, and don't try to be Oscar-worthy.
But when you're handed a franchise based on toys, and make each one subsequently longer to the point where your fourth film has a near-three hour run time, something's wrong. It's less about Bay doing his brand of movie and more him indulging in everything he likes, to the point where it's unbearable. With "Bad Boys", "The Rock", "Pain and Gain", and even "Transformers 1", he had restraint. With the "Transformers" sequels, it's anything but.
Of course Bay's not the only case where directorial power went bad. Take Zach Snyder and Peter Jackson, for example. Zach Snyder may have proven his directing chops with "300" and "Watchmen", but "Sucker Punch" proved that if you put him in charge of visuals AND story, the results aren't pretty. "Man of Steel" was better off, but if cities are blowing up and no one's batting an eye, something's wrong.
Peter Jackson, meanwhile, is an award-winning director, and completely deserves it. He did manage the Herculean task of adapting "Lord of the Rings" to film. And for this, I and many other fans will be eternally grateful. But when your "King Kong" remake is so long and awkwardly paced that the iconic biplane scene is actually boring, then restraint is needed. Same applies when adapting "The Hobbit", a 300 page book, into a nine hour trilogy. A two-parter I understand, but this I do not. Jackson's films are all visually arresting and packed with real emotion, yes, but he really needs to learn the power of editing.
George Lucas, on the other hand, needs to learn a little more than that. Once a true auteur for making "American Graffiti" and the "Star Wars" films, he's since fallen into ruin over creative control of his properties. Even back in the good old days, Lucas struggled to exert his vision on others. He hated how "Episode V" turned out, even though its director Irvin Kirshner made it the best of the Saga. His attempts at control led to Ewoks in Episode VI, all before the complete insanity of the Special Editions and the prequels. Lucas became so obsessed with his vision for the Saga that he alienated his fanbase. He never listened to anyone, rationalizing that midichlorians and Jar Jar Binks were good ideas. More than any other director, Lucas embodies what it means to let directorial power go to your head.
So we've seen now that even once-good directors can get power hungry and turn out crappy films. In these cases, maybe it's better if studios have more control after all. Studios with specific visions for films should reign in misbehaving directors, to ensure they don't indulge in excess. Sounds like a decent plan, given studios are the money behind these films and should know what they want to invest in. Except that, more often than not, total studio control is the worse possible thing to happen to a movie. Don't believe me? Look at every superhero film that's been made since the late '70s.
Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, and the X-Men know all too well what happens when a strong director is swept under the rug by the studio. Compare Richard Donner's first two Superman pics to every other sequel and reboot. Look at what the empowered Tim Burton and Chris Nolan did with Batman, as opposed to the studio-controlled Joel Schumacher. See how a studio mandate made "Spider-Man 3" what it was, to say nothing of the entirely corporate reboot series. Notice what happens to any X-Men film that doesn't have the name Bryan Singer attached, as director or producer.
Those problems, however, are small potatoes to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. If any franchise embodies the conflict between directorial and executive vision, it's this. Marvel CEO Kevin Fiege is highly publicized as the man behind the MCU. Everything is his vision, and it's up to him to ensure every film and show is integrated into the wider universe. Continuity this series may have, but as individual films, they're largely hit or miss. The best ones ("Iron Man 1 and 3", "Cap 1 and 2", "The Avengers") succeeded more due to a strong directorial vision than any reliance on a shared universe. The more mediocre entries ("Thor 1 and 2", "Iron Man 2", "Hulk","SHIELD") suffered for trying to service the wider universe, at the expense of standalone stories. Their directors bowed to the studios' whims, and it showed.
"Guardians" and "Ultron" look to be strong MCU entries, and if they are, it'll be due to Joss Whedon and James Gunn's strong visions. "Doctor Strange" director Scott Derrickson, known for his horror work, could also knock his Marvel project out of the park, should Marvel listen to him. The biggest threat now is "Ant-Man", which gets to the heart of this whole conflict. The entire reason the film is being made was "Shaun of the Dead" director Edgar Wright's unique vision for the story. He spent years perfecting it, and was finally ready to make it happen. But when Marvel ordered a re-write that didn't mesh with the tone Wright wanted, he quit. Now "Yes Man" director Peyton Reed has replaced him, hired to execute another man's passion project. It could be salvaged, true, but based on the track record of both other MCU projects and superhero films in general, it doesn't bode well.
So after all that, clearly studios can't be trusted with complete control either. Yet unless the director is a true auteur, most of them can't be trusted with absolute power. Who, then, should have the most authority? In all honesty, no one should, at least not fully. Every film is a collaborative effort, the result of directors, producers, writers, actors, stuntmen, effects people, etc. etc. No one person is completely responsible for the success or failure of a film. More often than not though, the director or the studio has the reigns. A strong director, whether auteur or hired gun, can succeed as long as they have a set vision. But even then, they need to collaborate with others, since too much ego can seriously ruin a film.
But collaboration doesn't mean "give in to studio demands." It means COMPROMISE. A balance needs to be struck between studio and director, regardless of who has more power and influence. Disney may be the reason new "Star Wars" films are getting made, but J.J. "Star Trek" Abrams, Gareth "Godzilla" Edwards, Rian "Looper" Johnson, and Josh "Chronicle" Trank have unique enough visions to carry these films forward. Their vision will hold power, but their collaboration with Disney/Lucasfilm will really bring the films to life. Lucas once knew, whether as director or producer, that working with others was the key to success. He may have lost his way with the prequels, but the Disney merger is proof that he's regained his senses. Other studios and directors must learn this too, so their films can benefit from successful collaborations. Good directorial vision will always benefit a film, but a good director, even an auteur, is one who knows to listen. Case closed.
No comments:
Post a Comment