Annie, I admit I have not been forthcoming in a constructive critique of Russell's oeuvre, and rather have tended to take potshots from the sidelines.
Perhaps if I can elucidate on my objection to much of his work.
Firstly, much of my indignation derives from his distorted view of form and content. You in an earlier post accused me of likely being in the camp of those who viewed his work as films merely filled with shock value and with little content, and you would be correct.
For me cinema, art, literature what ever you may wish to call it is adopting a form (means of expression) suitable for its content. In this regard Russell fails on the whole quite miserably, his subject matters by and large are grand in scale i.e. famous composers, controversial authors, taboo subjects delving on the grotesque, the sensationalist and dare I say the bleeding obvious. In adopting this easy target in terms of cinematic expression he fails to give any new insight to his subject matter other than some pathetic tabloid slant.
It is perhaps important to remember that Russell was actively engaged in pooh-poohing the British film industry for a couple of decades, directly as a result of much critical scorn directed at his work. Indeed I would argue that Russell was a victim of his own time (through no fault of his own) in which I mean most of his prolific output occurred during a period when cinema was at its most stale in the UK. Art house cinema has never been big on the agenda as a nation, instead art and the cultural debate took to the theatre and to the TV, and it is they who re-invented the form for a new discussion.
Russell and his ilk were left 'high and dry' and divorced from what was seen as important in British art. His answer was to lash out with a series films which had at its fore, strong shocking images - it was if this was the last breaths of a drowning man. Sure films like Tommy and Lisztomania were popular with cinema going audiences, but this was largely due to its musical element rather than any new stylised cinema. It is during this period I feel he lost sight of his own true art and means of expression particularly that which he achieved in his early career. Here Russell blended the subtle with often exquisite details in the minutiae.
Okay I admit on occasion he has fired a volley of shots to wake up the somewhat complacent nature of much 70's British Cinema and succeeded in making a point, but I would argue he has offered nothing new. It is interesting that Russell probably drew little or no inspiration from fellow European filmmakers of the period, and old (it certainly isn't evident in the majority of his work) but rather took solace in other forms of art: music and literature. This is of course common in cinematic history, however, Russell isn't merely creating a cover, pastiche or adaptation of narrative he takes those elements which provide the perfect vehicle for celluloid sensation often at the expense of a true interpretation or insight from the original source material....in my view he cheats his audience and offers something which is simply just Russell
Secondly, in terms of his importance as an English film maker - well he fills a niche (or shall I say a void), but he has not significantly added to output of british cinema. For that you need to look at Powell & Pressburger, Lindsay Anderson, Ken Loach, Mike Leigh and Dennis Potter who were the big batters, but then again I am sure you are well versed in their work
Annie, I perfectly accept your position and love for his films, something which you write about with passion and enthusiasm and thank god someone does. For me it was a period in which I worked in the arts and was passionate about its ability to change people and society and sadly for me Russell and so much British cinema at the time were far removed from that goal. I would like to add that I have since then grown up!
Hope this is not just a rambling mess, if so I blame it on the wine I've consumed
