Hi, I love your films except...

[Nihonophile]

Here's a fun little theoretical question:

If you were to meet film maker whose work you really love would you have the gumption to mention that you thought ______ sucked?

Personally, I don't think I'd be courageous enough to tell Takeshi Kitano that "Brother" was poor. Likewise, I don't think I'd tell John Carpenter how I fear his latest work because I don't think he needs the reminder or the reason to drink more.

However, I think I'd want to discuss with Kinji Fukasaku about his early 80s career. Legend of the Eight Samurai was reprehensible and I'd be really interested to hear what he was thinking at the time. Especially considering I thought Samurai Reincarnation was a wonderful flick.

[Michael Kerpan]

I can't imagine telling any creator (of films or anything else), face to face, that I thought one (or more) of his works sucked.

Call me a wimp.

[justeleblanc]

I think producers deserve the hit more than directors, IMO.

"Hey Joel Silver, Matrix 3 sucked."

[chaddoli]

When I met Gus Van Sant, I thought about mentioning how much Psycho blew and what a shitty idea it was, but didn't have the courage to even bring up the film. Someone else in the audience did though, in a carefully worded question -- as in "What made you decide to make a shot for shot remake of Pyscho?"

However, I think I would feel more comfortable in maybe asking David Cronenberg how he thinks Fast Company fits into his filmography, or something like that.

[Jun-Dai]

This is kind of a silly thread, but. . .

I think my comfort level would depend entirely on the first part of the conversation. If the director seemed receptive to my thoughts about her/his films, I might venture forth that I was disappointed by one, though I'd be more inclined to phrase it as "I really didn't understand what you were doing in. . . "

[shumpy]

I met Steven Soderbergh while he was in Las Vegas shooting Oceans 11--I'd had a few drinks, and mentioned to him how much I admired The Underneath, which he has repeatedly trashed in the years since its release. "I think it's a brilliant film," I said. His response: "I could prove to you in a court of law that you're completely wrong about that."

[Nihonophile]

I met Steven Soderbergh while he was in Las Vegas shooting Oceans 11--I'd had a few drinks, and mentioned to him how much I admired The Underneath, which he has repeatedly trashed in the years since its release. "I think it's a brilliant film," I said. His response: "I could prove to you in a court of law that you're completely wrong about that."

You've validated my thread now. I hoped for stories like this...so its not a silly thread Jun-Dai

Chaddoli, have you listened to the Fast Company commentary yet?

[Faux Hulot]

Years ago when I was a student at Columbia College in Chicago, William Friedkin came to speak in conjunction with an advance screening of To Live and Die in LA. It was a packed house full of mostly callow film students, but at one point a bold wag had the temerity to ask "What the hell happened went wrong with Cruising?" Obviously pissed, the director sharply said "Next" and unceremoniously went on to the next question.

[devlinnn]

It always surprises me distributors continue to hold Q&As at licensed venues / or open bar preview screenings for out-of-work film students. Poor Danny Boyle was visibly shaken when confronted with an avalanche of abuse during a Q&A after a screening of A Life Less Ordinary back in '97. But after what we had put up with for the previous two hours, he deserved it.

[chaddoli]

Chaddoli, have you listened to the Fast Company commentary yet?

No I haven't and unfortunately might never get a chance. I got it from Netflix and sent it back right after I watched it (no rental places have it near me). What also sucks is that Netflix doesn't have the second disc with his early work!

But if I ever get a chance, I will listen to it as I'm sure with Cronenberg's incredible oratory skills and intelligence I will come out of it considering Fast Company a masterpiece. Cronenberg provides some of the best commentaries around, and I always like his movies even more after listening to them. Is the commentary good?

[Oedipax]

Cronenberg talks at length about how he likes Fast Company as much as any of his films, how he doesn't see it as 'lesser' film at all. Obviously the subject matter is a lot different, but Cronenberg has an interest in the cars and in racing and very much enjoyed the oppurtunity to make the film and work with the actors. It's a pretty neat commentary, and definitely sheds light on his other films and his own attitude towards the films he makes.

[Nihonophile]

I agree, but I wouldn't say it makes me like the film more. Speaking of his commentaries, the Dead Ringers one killed the movie for me. 'Let us talk about the visual tricks of this movie for 90 minutes.'

[mmiesner]

now obviously, Bruce Campbell simply attracts the sort of deprecating questions i saw him get inundated with at a speaking engagement, but i thought he handled it perfectly. after opening the floor for questions and being asked about a handful of 4 movies, he stopped the Q&A to answer once and for all. someone had just mentioned Congo, and Bruce retorted with 'ok, i want you to imagine that you are me, and over there is Michael Crichton, NYT best selling author, and pretend that over there is a hotshot producer with a hotshot screenwriter, and they have a good amount of money to stick into making an action flick summer blockbuster. they want you to be in it. what would you say to that? oh really, you'd accept? imagine that.'

Bruce was a great guy, go see him if you can.

that said, if i ever bumped into Peter Greenaway, i might say i didn't quite get his point in Drowning by Numbers. but if i ran into Scorsese, i hope i have the gumption to just cough out a 'Bringing out the Dead' reference to see his reaction. because that movie sucks

[neuro]

Not to dampen the subject at hand, my thoughts regarding the subject are hinted by Jun-Dai's following statement:

I might venture forth that I was disappointed by one, though I'd be more inclined to phrase it as "I really didn't understand what you were doing in. . . "

Bluntly speaking, and as I have said on the forum in the past, I have little patience for individuals who openly criticize (i.e. critique that limits itself to "that movie sucks;" no offense mmiesner), and do very little beyond idle chatting on a message board to contribute to the advancement or richness of cinema as a whole. Consider the ease at which one can say "that movie sucks" as compared to the immense effort it takes to create a film, even a poor one, and you can tell which side I'm more likely to take in the argument of filmmakers vs. critics (OT, but see Orson's take in the newly-released F for Fake for his thoughts on the matter). Granted, I'm willing to accept divisive comments on a film, and therefore by result a certain degree of snideness, but, in regard to the specific topic, what good would it do to inform a filmmaker of your thoughts on a particular film? I find that most filmmakers responsible for what is generally considered as a "bad film" either a) know it's bad and admit to such, or b) still love the film nonetheless, like a bastard offspring, and defend it regardless. Furthermore, what naive cinephile is delusional to the point that they are under the belief that said comments would matter to the filmmaker?

In general, I respect filmmakers who inject their work with creativity, intelligence and effort, among other qualities, and don't really hold it against them when one of the films doesn't particularly work for me (although if it's a prolonged streak, it gets a bit muddier, although I'd still never personally let them know). At the same time, I'm not implying that criticism is a negative response; in fact it's most likely a necessary byproduct of any art. However my argument is that in a world where everyone's a critic, there's no room for the artists - the ones who take chances, defend their choices and frankly, are willing to not give a damn what you or I think. In the long run, what's more offensive: creating an inferior work, or spending your time criticizing it?

So perhaps my main concern is with phrasing and tact; it's probably more helpful to intelligently discuss a filmmaker's work in a constructive manner that to outright proclaim your dissent.

All my jabbering reminds me of the Dostoyevsky wannabe from Slacker: "Who's ever written a great work about the immense effort required in order not to create?"

[cbernard]

I would be genuinely curious about a work that troubled me, but I would hopefully have the manners to keep from saying that it "sucked."

In other words, it would be far more important to me to learn about the film as a part of the director's overall body of work than to be so presumptuous as to think the artist cares about the opinion of one spectator.

Let me ask you guys this: where do you go from "that sucked"? You are either interested in the film or you aren't. Or, more to the point, you are either interested in the film or in your opinion of the film. Speaking as a filmmaker, "that sucked" isn't the best way to get someone to talk more about something you're interested in.

[mmiesner]

to defend myself, i did not say that i would outright tell any artist that i thought their work sucked. yes, i did say that that particular scorsese film sucked, but i did not say that i would tell him it sucked. i did say i would ask him about it, but i definitely would be polite and i would truly like to hear what he would have to say.
i agree that it is not really a good idea to just tell someone their work sucks, but i would definitely want to talk to them to try to find out why they did certain things, or the project at all. my other example was Drowning by Numbers. i love Peter Greenaway's films and every interview i have read by the man, but i didn't like that film and would like to know more about it from him and possibly explain why i didn't like it to him. this is definitely all for my benefit, especially on a film that is that old. but don't you agree that a filmmaker has their audience in mind to an extent? i am not saying they all do or that they should, i just think they most likely do - so i believe the audience should be allowed to voice their opinion and recieve feedback on maybe why their opinion of it sucked. everytime someone tells me that Mulholland Dr. sucks, i definitely want to talk to them about it - don't you think David Lynch (or any artist) wants to defend in the same way?

[MichaelB]

now obviously, Bruce Campbell simply attracts the sort of deprecating questions i saw him get inundated with at a speaking engagement, but i thought he handled it perfectly. after opening the floor for questions and being asked about a handful of 4 movies, he stopped the Q&A to answer once and for all. someone had just mentioned Congo, and Bruce retorted with 'ok, i want you to imagine that you are me, and over there is Michael Crichton, NYT best selling author, and pretend that over there is a hotshot producer with a hotshot screenwriter, and they have a good amount of money to stick into making an action flick summer blockbuster. they want you to be in it. what would you say to that? oh really, you'd accept? imagine that.'

Campbell was on equally good form in this interview, especially this comeback:

Campbell claims to have been asked every single question ("Twice!") about the Evil Dead trilogy. But what on earth can there be to say about those films? Do they ask about the characters? The shoot? "No," sighs Campbell, "You know what? I wish that those were the questions. Here's what I get: 'Will there be a part four?' I just finished a 22-city tour of the States and that question would come up all the time. I'd say, 'OK, who wanted Indiana Jones 4?' I did this at 10 different cities and maybe two hands would go up. I'd go, 'There's your answer, right there.'"

He shrugs. "Harrison Ford can't even hold the whip any more! Look, if you think it through, those Evil Dead movies were very difficult to make. Every single one was a nightmare. Physically, mentally, financially - just difficult, troubled shoots. So what would make us want to go back into that world again, go through all that pain and agony as middle-aged men? The last time we made one was 18 years ago. Army Of Darkness was made 18 years ago! No one seems to do that math. Am I going to be in a wheelchair by the time we do it? My greatest fear is that we go through all that time and effort, make this part four, and people will go, 'Oh, it's OK. But it's not as good as Army Of Darkness.' Which is what will happen! It's a guarantee!"

As for the thread's main topic, I don't think I've ever slagged off someone's film to their face without knowing in advance what they themselves thought of it - but I usually meet filmmakers in situations where I'm supposed to be maintaining an atmosphere of cheery bonhomie, so it wouldn't be especially appropriate. That said, I've certainly had a conversation with Guy Maddin based on the mutual agreement that Twilight of the Ice Nymphs didn't turn out quite the way he'd hoped, and when I met David Warbeck (British star of countless 1970s/1980s gore/exploitation films), I was equally aware that he doesn't exactly regard his output as Citizen Kane meets The Godfather. In fact, he actually went down his filmography going "That's crap... so's that... oh my God that was terrible..."

[Doctor Sunshine]

At the Toronto Film Festival, Eli Roth screened and early cut of Hostel. The Q&A was mostly a love fest from the audience but he'd gone on about how the movie was his attempt to one up the J-horror of Miike and the like, and one girl asked if he didn't think he could have taken it further in terms of both gore and horror and then illustrated an example. He quickly brushed her off and went on to the next question but I could tell his fragile fratboy ego was shaken. She was my hero that night.

The same year I gave Thomas Vinterberg the evil eye after Dear Wendy--which I found extremely patronizing. I think he caught it because he gave an "uhhh" look in my direction and, assuming he could make out faces as the lighting was pretty severe, I would have stood out as we generally have very polite audiences up here in Canada. NB: neither of those are directors I love. In keeping with the question, I wouldn't have any problem bringing up something I didn't like but I imagine my impulse would be towards stuff I genuinely like and am interested in. If I had a really good jeer that might be another story.

[George Kaplan]

I can't imagine telling any creator (of films or anything else), face to face, that I thought one (or more) of his works sucked.

I agree, but then I'd love to prove myself wrong if I met up with Franco Zefferelli.

[planetjake]

True story: When Todd Solondz came to Chicago to screen Palindromes, I approached him after a screening with my wife. She was beautifully (and provocatively) dressed. He was clearly terrified of her because he couldn't stop frantically glancing between her legs and breasts. He stammered through every question that was posed to him. Eventually when my wife asked him a question, he fought himself to some state of composure and gave the most eloquent response anyone had heard from him the entire night. Hilarious.

[transcendent1]

Would you like it if someone said that about *your* films?

Come on.

[domino harvey]

I've always loved Godard's approach to the Hitchcock and Lang films he didn't like. Instead of saying they were bad, he said they were "the least good"-- that's probably the best way to sugarcoat this kind of thing in person

[mfunk9786]

Would you like it if someone said that about *your* films?

Come on.

Anyone ever think of closing the membership rolls for awhile, like many membership sites do? Just for awhile?

[domino harvey]

My favorite part was that at first it appeared he was rallying against someone finding your films attractive

[cdnchris]

Anyone ever think of closing the membership rolls for awhile, like many membership sites do? Just for awhile?

His other posts are not that bad. A lot of regulars made stupid posts when they first started posting here so it's not a completely new occurence. Christ, give the guy a chance.