113 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

“Hack”, to me, implies a director who consistently produces results ranging from mediocre to total failure, which Young and Gilbert and Campbell have not. So, personally, I wouldn’t label them as such.

You nailed it there.

Well, it's how Judo would define it.

I'd define the word a bit differently, ala someone who, when left to their own devices, demonstrates no significant amount of artistic accomplishment, but is still able to produce a decent product given that things fall into place. And I think the majority of the Bond directors fall into such a definition very well.

[dodge]

“Hack”, to me, implies a director who consistently produces results ranging from mediocre to total failure, which Young and Gilbert and Campbell have not. So, personally, I wouldn’t label them as such.

You nailed it there.

Well, it's how Judo would define it.

I'd define the word a bit differently, ala someone who, when left to their own devices, demonstrates no significant amount of artistic accomplishment, but is still able to produce a decent product given that things fall into place. And I think the majority of the Bond directors fall into such a definition very well.

As long as you leave Campbell out of that group, I have no real objection. But it's worth remembering that great glorious Bloody Sam (Peckinpah) referred to himself as a tired old whore who did what the honchos obliged him to do. At the end of the day, I'll still take Zorro or CR or the original Edge of Darkness over anything done by very nearly any damned auteur.

[Harmsway]

As long as you leave Campbell out of that group, I have no real objection.

I think Campbell is very much part of that group. He might even be its poster child. In my mind, the man's made only one really good flick, and that's CASINO ROYALE.

I'd love to see him return for BOND 23, though.

At the end of the day, I'll still take Zorro or CR or the original Edge of Darkness over anything done by very nearly any damned auteur.

I wouldn't.

[Captain Tightpants]

I think that Campbell's "thing" as a director is that he's able to bring life back into a film series that is enarly dead. Twice now he's done it; resurrecting Bond after the six-year hiatus with GoldenEye and then undoing the near-deathblow tht was Die Another Day with a damn good film.

Forster, on the other hand, is a storyteller. He's concerned first and foremost with telling the story, and I very much imagine that he could create something out of a film without a large budget, without big-name actors or even a simple, saleable premise; something which is not common amongst directors. And given that Quantum of Solace has all of that - plenty of cash, Craig in the lead role and the fact that it's a James Bond film - he should be able to do wonders.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'm a little concerned about the whole "very little time to edit" business, but, then again, From Russia with Love had a similarly tight editing schedule, and look at how it turned out...

[Captain Tightpants]

I'm a little concerned about the whole "very little time to edit" business, but, then again, From Russia with Love had a similarly tight editing schedule, and look at how it turned out...

Actually, I think a lot of the films have had a short window of time for editing. As was previously stated by others, I also think that Forster's comments are so much as "EON isn't giving me enough time to finish this" as they are "I'm finding the time period tight because I'm used to having twice as much time". It's nothing to be worried about at all; hell, a tight timeframe means that the film will be edited smartly, rather than degenerating into a self-indulgent spiel.

[dodge]

As long as you leave Campbell out of that group, I have no real objection.

I think Campbell is very much part of that group. He might even be its poster child. In my mind, the man's made only one really good flick, and that's CASINO ROYALE.

I'd love to see him return for BOND 23, though.

At the end of the day, I'll still take Zorro or CR or the original Edge of Darkness over anything done by very nearly any damned auteur.

I wouldn't.

Clearly, you wouldn't. But then again you rank The Watchmen comic book as a towering masterpiece of world literature. Your definition of the word hack is so uniquely tied to your do-or-die commitment to proving in advance that Forster descended from heaven that no one can debate it without a Lewis Carroll cap. A hack is traditionally defined as someone working in the arts, motivated almost exclusively by the desire to make money, quality be damned.

There are problems with that definition: Samuel Johnson once said that only a blockhead wrote for anything other than money. And nearly all great writers have been forced at some point to do hackwork. But the definition's good enough and is more useful than yours is. Both Mickey Spillane and Dash' Hammett wanted to make money. But one of the pair was an artist as well as businessman.

Now, then. By your definition, lower level artists--those trying their best to do top-level work and falling short--are hacks. You might want to rethink your position on that. It's fairer--and I'd say truer--to think of artists, including directors, on a sliding scale: with real hacks at the very bottom and the greatest of the great at the very top.

Where Forster belongs on that scale is something he still has to prove. But don't let your ambition to have him be Numero Uno blind you to the merits of those who've done great work before him. They too were artists and worth your respect.

After all, not every genius has a Watchmen in him. (Please insert emoticon of The Dodger giving your raspberry back.)

[Harmsway]

Clearly, you wouldn't. But then again you rank The Watchmen comic book as a towering masterpiece of world literature.

This is relevant to our current discussion how? And given that you haven't read it, and I'm not all alone in the world on that opinion when mainstream TIME magazine proclaims it as one of the greatest English language pieces of literature since 1923, I don't see why or how you think this is an appropriate jab.

When you've actually bothered to read it, we can have this discussion. And even then, it wouldn't be at all relevant to the discussion at hand.

Your definition of the word hack is so uniquely tied to your do-or-die commitment to proving in advance that Forster descended from heaven that no one can debate it without a Lewis Carroll cap.

But I don't think Forster descended from heaven, and that's something I've stated again and again in this thread (and elsewhere). I wonder if you even bother to really read my posts. While I was initially very enthusiastic about Forster, more and more, I don't think his contribution to Bond is going to be anything special at all.

I'd rather have Campbell, yes, the guy I think is a poster child for the "for hire hack" category, back. Indeed, I say sign the chap on for all of Craig's Bond films.

[Safari Suit]

I don't really understand the Foster as auteur spiel. I'll grant that I didn't like Finding Neverland or Stranger Than Fiction mostly because they're full of all kind of crap which (subjectively) bugs the out of me, and they are in their own way (gulp) good films, but I still don't see how they required a particularly visionary talent to bring them to the screen.

This is not to say we cannot expect a fine Bond film from Mr. Foster, as after all we got fine Bond films from the directors of Inchon (ok, I never saw that), Aces: Iron Eagle III (ok, I'd probably enjoy that) and Christopher Columbus: The Discovery (yeah, bad one). But I still don't see him as an auteur.

[dodge]

Clearly, you wouldn't. But then again you rank The Watchmen comic book as a towering masterpiece of world literature.

This is relevant to our current discussion how? And given that you haven't read it, and I'm not all alone in the world on that opinion when TIME magazine proclaims it as one of the greatest English language pieces of literature since 1923, I don't see how this even can be much of a jab. When you've actually bothered read it, we can have this discussion.

Your definition of the word hack is so uniquely tied to your do-or-die commitment to proving in advance that Forster descended from heaven that no one can debate it without a Lewis Carroll cap.

But I don't think Forster descended from heaven, and that's something I've stated again and again in this thread. Sometimes, I wonder if you even bother to really read my posts. While I was initially very enthusiastic about Forster, more and more, I don't think his contribution to Bond is going to be anything special at all.

I'd rather have Campbell, yes, the guy I think is a poster child for the "for hire hack" category, back. Indeed, I say sign the chap on for all of Craig's Bond films.

Now, then. By your definition, lower level artists--those trying their best to do top-level work and falling short--are hacks.

Yes.

I have read it, thank you. I've already explained its relevance to our discussion. But how I can discuss anything with a man who assumes I haven't read a work because I don't agree with his--and Time's--assessment of it as a masterpiece of world lit?

Comic book masterpiece? Maybe. Literary masterpiece? Certainly not, unless the brilliant and masterful putting together of WORDS is no longer a criterion.

Beowful and The Odyssey and The Iliad all share key elements with the better comix. But these works have lived on for thousands of years because of the beauty of LANGUAGE. If you choose to create, Oscar-style, a new classification for Watchmen, all right. But I'd challenge you to quote the literary passages--you know, the ones with word-things?--that qualify the comic for consideration in this field. Till then, with all respect, I'll pass on arguing further with either you or Time.

P.S. I have read your posts. I read all of your posts and I love them dearly. Long may your flag wave.

[Harmsway]

I don't really understand the Foster as auteur spiel.

He's not an auteur at all. The only group calling him an auteur are Bond fans.

[Harmsway]

I have read it, thank you.

I'm interested, then. Your posts in the IRON MAN 2 thread indicated otherwise.

Literary masterpiece? Certainly not, unless the brilliant and masterful putting together of WORDS is no longer a criterion.

It's not always as simple as that. A lot of the great works we uphold as literary triumphs aren't made by great wordsmiths (Edgar Allan Poe, for example, always shows in up the canon of Western literature, but it's certainly not because of his way with words). I'd even argue that the great Dante Aligheri himself wasn't a particularly good poet.

And since it seems that the comic book/graphic novel genre is approached as literature, it's the only manner in which I feel prepared to categorize it. Truthfully, it doesn't fit... it's its own thing, but I'm just operating under the more agreed upon categories.

All I can specifically say is that I believe that WATCHMEN is a great work of art. Not the greatest that Alan Moore ever did, mind you (FROM HELL gets that honor), but it speaks to its genre, its culture in a way that's makes it stand out more than something like FROM HELL does.

Beowful and The Odyssey and The Iliad all share key elements with the better comix. But these works have lived on for thousands of years because of the beauty of LANGUAGE.

I'd argue that those specific titles have lived on more for the power of the narratives than the beauty of their words.

But I'd challenge you to quote the literary passages--you know, the ones with word-things?--that qualify the comic for consideration in this field.

I'd be happy to (I do think Alan Moore handles language pretty well, even though language is secondary in the graphic novel), but now really isn't the time or place.

Anyway, back to Forster: I re-iterate that my deeming of the Bond directors to this point as "for-hire hacks" was in no way to build-up Forster, who in all liklihood will turn in a product inferior to those of the "for-hire hacks" (by that I mean I'm highly skeptical that QUANTUM will be able to surpass FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, or CASINO ROYALE).

[dodge]

bb

I have read it, thank you.

I didn't know that. You'd never really given the indication.

Literary masterpiece? Certainly not, unless the brilliant and masterful putting together of WORDS is no longer a criterion.

It's not always as simple as that. A lot of the great works we uphold as literary triumphs aren't made by great wordsmiths (Edgar Allan Poe, for example, always shows in up the canon of Western literature, but it's certainly not because of his way with words). I'd even argue that the great Dante Aligheri himself wasn't a particularly good poet.

And since it seems that the comic book/graphic novel genre is approached as literature, it's the only manner in which I feel prepared to categorize it. Truthfully, it doesn't fit... it's its only thing, but I'm just operating under the more agreed upon categories.

Beowful and The Odyssey and The Iliad all share key elements with the better comix. But these works have lived on for thousands of years because of the beauty of LANGUAGE.

I'd argue that those specific titles havelived on more for the power of the narratives than the beauty of their words.

But I'd challenge you to quote the literary passages--you know, the ones with word-things?--that qualify the comic for consideration in this field.

I'd be happy to (I do think Alan Moore handles language pretty well, even though language is secondary in the graphic novel), but now really isn't the time or place.

I'll look forward to meeting some day, at the right time and place. Till then, I'll smile myself to sleep at night thinking what a crappy poet poor old Dante A was. And Poe, whose lines are quoted still with total delight in their music.

You've read the wrong translations of Homer if you don't see the poetry. Try, just try, listening to Derek Jacobi read the Robert Fagles translation. Cheers.

[Harmsway]

And Poe, whose lines are quoted still with total delight in their music.

Only by some. A good portion of the literary circle is well with me on Poe's failings as wordsmith. It's why there's always been a love-hate relationship between Poe and the literary circle, and Poe has been something of a hotly-debated black sheep.

I say this as someone who devoted some really serious academic study to Poe and loves him dearly and thinks he deserves to be in the canon purely because of his success as mythmaker. I love the guy. I just don't think he was much of a wordsmith.

You've read the wrong translations of Homer if you don't see the poetry.

The minute you move from one language to another, you've lost any genuine ability to evaluate the poetic qualities of the original work. Or at least that's my conviction.

That's not to say that I've read Homer in the original language - I haven't - but it doesn't seem to me that the reason Homer is so popular even today is because he is an esteemed wordsmith, but rather because of the narrative power of the stories he tells.

[kneelbeforezod]

Your definition of the word hack is so uniquely tied to your do-or-die commitment to proving in advance that Forster descended from heaven

I've been following this thread, and the above comment struck me as totally bizarre, as Harmsway seems to have been repeatedly going out of his way to explain that this is NOT his view at all! So Dodge, I have to ask... are you just trying to wind him up?

[dodge]

Your definition of the word hack is so uniquely tied to your do-or-die commitment to proving in advance that Forster descended from heaven

I've been following this thread, and the above comment struck me as totally bizarre, as Harmsway seems to have been repeatedly going out of his way to explain that this is NOT his view at all! So Dodge, I have to ask... are you just trying to wind him up?

No, kneel, I am not. This is known as a debate that's getting a little bit heated, that's all, between two guys, each of whom believes in his own p.o.v. You've misread me as badly as you accuse me of misreading Harms.

Furthermore, I expressed a sincere interest in meeting with him someday since he'd declared this was the wrong place and time to iron out our differences.

[blueman]

I kinda get dodge's POV: I was pretty nervous that Campbell was directing CR, as I thought GE was a bloated mess and none of his other films were any good at all. Different strokes. But Campbell delivered a fine Bond film, and one of the better directed ones too IMO. Forster has a body of work that IMO dwarfs all the other Bond directors except maybe Hamilton (on a good day...). He continually gets solid-to-awesome performances out of his actors, and has a nice visual flair and can actually adapt it as needed to whatever material he's working on. Those two things alone can be very difficult for a director: Young was great with actors but visually was rather pedestrian; Hamilton could do both but often did neither; Hunt was better at the latter, okay with the former; Gilbert never met a sunset he didn't like, usually at the expense of the actors; less said about Glen the better; Spottiswoode did okay, got the best performance out of Brosnan; Apted and Tamahori, I have no idea what they were going for with anything, just complete messes

There are damn few directors working now I would feel good about directing a Bond film, Forster is one of them because he adapts himself to the material and does it better than most - not that I like all his films, but none that I've seen are bad in any way some just aren't my cup of tea. A credit to his adaptability IMO. He's less an auteur in my mind than a very good old-school-style Hollywood studio contract director: able to do whatever work is given to him, and do it well. It's a rare thing these days IMO, I think we're fortunate to get him for QOS and my expectation is that he delivers a great Bond film. But we'll see, not like EON hasn't tossed out a few lemons over the years. Just have much fewer worries than usual with a guy like Forster directing (like, I don't fear the director won't "get it," as Forster seemingly gets everything). None of this makes him the best director in town, just a good one for a Bond film IMO: dude elicits strong performances within a vibrant visual canvas, at the least the films of his I've seen. If QOS is similar we'll be in for a treat indeed.

And if it's a big mess, or even mediocre, we can all say "Dodge was right!" So win-win.

[Harmsway]

Your definition of the word hack is so uniquely tied to your do-or-die commitment to proving in advance that Forster descended from heaven

I've been following this thread, and the above comment struck me as totally bizarre, as Harmsway seems to have been repeatedly going out of his way to explain that this is NOT his view at all!

Thank you.

[dodge]

And Poe, whose lines are quoted still with total delight in their music.

Only by some. A good portion of the literary circle is well with me on Poe's failings as wordsmith. It's why there's always been a love-hate relationship between Poe and the literary circle, and Poe has been something of a hotly-debated black sheep.

I say this as someone who devoted some really serious academic study to Poe and loves him dearly and thinks he deserves to be in the canon purely because of his success as mythmaker. I love the guy. I just don't think he was much of a wordsmith.

You've read the wrong translations of Homer if you don't see the poetry.

The minute you move from one language to another, you've lost any genuine ability to evaluate the poetic qualities of the original work. Or at least that's my conviction.

That's not to say that I've read Homer in the original language - I haven't - but it doesn't seem to me that the reason Homer is so popular even today is because he is an esteemed wordsmith, but rather because of the narrative power of the stories he tells.

Harms, an invitation: we're veering off toward territory that might not be of interest to anyone but us: what makes a lit classic a classic...the proper place on Parnassus for Poe...the vital role translation plays in bringing 'dead' classics to life.

You've already signified that this is the wrong time and place. I agree. Till we have the pleasure of meeting one day, send me a PM if you'd like to pursue this by e-mail and I'll gladly provide my address. Sincerely. I'd be interested in hearing more about your views on Poe. As for me, the Roman/Greek classics have been my passion since I was a kid. Some of my ideas on translation might strike you as worth at least a thought.

As for this subject, for the good of the site and our friendship, I sign off here and now with great respect to your good self.

[Safari Suit]

Hang on a second...

Irvin Kershner; hack or not?

[Harmsway]

Hang on a second...

Irvin Kershner; hack or not?

Who are you asking? Me?

[Safari Suit]

Anyone. He's the last Bond director not categorised by anyone in this thread as far as I can see. Some people say he had a big influence on the first two Star Wars films, but success outside of that has been limited.

[Harmsway]

Anyone. He's the last Bond director not categorised by anyone in this thread as far as I can see. Some people say he had a big influence on the first two Star Wars films, but success outside of that has been limited.

The definition I gave names him hack (and as far as I'm aware, his influence was only on EMPIRE... not on the first STAR WARS).

[Safari Suit]

I once read something which suggested to me he had some kind of involvement with the first, but I didn't really understand it and could have got mixed up.

Now John "scenes at Sir James Bond's house" Huston wasn't a hack, but that's getting desperate.