"In a world where irony reigns, where you have to separate, protect and laugh at anything that is honest or has an emotional charge, I bet for catharsis. I like to invest emotionally in things. And catharsis, when it touches the emotional vein, can open the doors of even those who protect themselves."
Filmography Features Amores perros (2000) 21 Grams (2003) Babel (2006) Biutiful (2010) Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014) The Revenant (2015) Bardo, falsa crónica de unas cuantas verdades / Bardo, False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths (2022)
Shorts
"El Timbre" (1996)
"Powder Keg" (2001) [segment, The Hire BMW advertising series]
"11'09"01 (2002) [segment, 11'09"01 September 11]
"ANNA" (2007) [segment, Chaucun son cinema]
"Naran Ja" (2012)
"Carne y arena" (2017)
Books Babel: A Film by Alejandro González Iñárritu by Maria Eladia Hagerman, ed. (2006) Alejandro González Iñárritu by Celestino Deleyto and Maria del Mar Azcona (2010) The Three Amigos: The Transnational Filmmaking of Guillermo Del Toro, Alejandro González Iñárritu, and Alfonso Cuarón by Deborah Shaw (2015)
Agreed... having read several lengthy interviews and seen each speak at length in person, I think Iñárritu, Del Toro, and Cuaron are near the top of the list for filmmakers whose thoughts on film, storytelling, and art in general I enjoy hearing most — regardless of what one might think of their respective filmographies.
I know Iñárritu is particularly divisive, but it's hard to argue that he doesn't take risks on the kinds of projects the cinephile community is consistently clamoring for, or that he doesn't commit fully to those risks for better or worse. He's one of those directors for whom I can see and understand the criticisms of his work, while still finding his output consistently interesting and sometimes great, especially post-Arriaga.
Iñárritu's bad reputation on this forum is due to a few vocal naysayers who unrelentingly pop up to say he sucks every time he's mentioned. But if one looks at overall top tens from the forum, his films are actually broadly well liked. Unfortunately those who like him are less likely to express it with the frequency of those who don't. For the record, I think he's easily one of our greatest currently working directors and I don't mind being on the front lines for that battle
Have you seen Biutiful? That's the only film of his I haven't seen, and I ordered the blu-ray after reading that interview; as the bridge between his more recent and more awarded work and the trilogy of non-chronological, intersecting timeline stories scripted by Arriaga, I'm curious about where it fits in his filmography.
DarkImbecile wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:58 pm
Have you seen Biutiful? That's the only film of his I haven't seen, and I ordered the blu-ray after reading that interview; as the bridge between his more recent and more awarded work and the trilogy of non-chronological, intersecting timeline stories scripted by Arriaga, I'm curious about where it fits in his filmography.
It's been in my unwatched pile for years, maybe I'll bump it up in the queue in celebration of this dedicated thread!
swo17 wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:15 pm
My strongest opinion about Iñárritu is that his last name is González Iñárritu
Ah, but he's officially credited on his most recent films as "Alejandro G. Iñárritu", which would seem to imply that he doesn't treat it that way, right?
domino harvey wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:53 pm
Iñárritu's bad reputation on this forum is due to a few vocal naysayers who unrelentingly pop up to say he sucks every time he's mentioned. But if one looks at overall top tens from the forum, his films are actually broadly well liked. Unfortunately those who like him are less likely to express it with the frequency of those who don't. For the record, I think he's easily one of our greatest currently working directors and I don't mind being on the front lines for that battle
As one who rather "dislikes" him, I'd say that I don't really hate any of his pictures. I just find his films incredibly filled to the brim with self-importance, while his two "American" post Biutiful films are just shallow imitations of far better films that I love. I would be perfectly fine where he wasnt winning Oscars left and right and being called a visionary. But hate him I don't.
Did I miss all the posts praising his films being removed from this forum or something?
The Revenant was OK. Looked pretty nice, Hardy's performance is stupendously good, and when DiCaprio gets back to town in the 3rd act it's totally stirring until the ending gets bungled.
I'll hold off on discussing the rest lest I clog the forum up with more negativity.
dda1996a wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:33 pmI would be perfectly fine where he wasnt winning Oscars left and right and being called a visionary.
This has probably amplified the negative criticism against him, but this is always the case. No one gets worked up about an unheralded artist that they don't like.
I think the worst take-down I've seen on Iñárritu came from the A.V. Club's review of Birdman. It was more about why the critic believed he was a hack and a fraud and less about the film's own merits (or lack thereof). It brought to mind Pitchfork's notoriously snotty review of Liz Phair's self-titled album - I didn't like it either, but their "assessment" of it was garbage.
Personally I like Birdman. The production itself is dazzling, and I'd say it's probably his best film because the context does alleviate his shortcomings as an artist.
DarkImbecile wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:58 pm
Have you seen Biutiful? That's the only film of his I haven't seen, and I ordered the blu-ray after reading that interview; as the bridge between his more recent and more awarded work and the trilogy of non-chronological, intersecting timeline stories scripted by Arriaga, I'm curious about where it fits in his filmography.
It's a great film and what made me reconsider my previous dislike of him significantly softening my response to Babel for example. It basically takes the themes he was playing with up until that point and recast them in the magical realist mold he's done since. I might even go as far to say it is his best film. Honestly if not for his two shorts and 21 Grams I'd be with Domino on him being one of our greatest living filmmakers.
I'm rather ok with his Death trilogy. Amores Perros is his best (Biutiful unseen), and even the other two, while incredibly morronic script-wise are saved by Inaritu's strong direction and fantastic cast. Take that as the best compliments I can conjure for him. I think he is a strong visualist, just that he rarely has anything new to say or shoot.
I half-liked some of his earlier films like Amores Perros and Babel but have never had any desire to revisit them. 21 Grams particularly left a sour taste in my mouth and I think maybe was the start of me fundamentally mistrusting Inarritu as a storyteller or as an artist with any sort of real insight.
Biutiful is okay, didn't like Birdman, but The Revenant mostly works for me and I'd say I probably count that one as his best. It takes the technical strengths and applies them to a simple story (but one that doesn't feel done to death). Plus good performances from DiCaprio, Hardy, and the bear.
dda1996a wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:33 pm
As one who rather "dislikes" him, I'd say that I don't really hate any of his pictures. I just find his films incredibly filled to the brim with self-importance, while his two "American" post Biutiful films are just shallow imitations of far better films that I love. I would be perfectly fine where he wasnt winning Oscars left and right and being called a visionary. But hate him I don't.
What do you consider The Revenant to be a shallow imitation of? As someone who loves that film, I'm not asking to be argumentative but rather to get recommendations of similar, potentially just as good, or better, films of that ilk.
dda1996a wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:35 am
For me it was basically Malick, Herzog, Cuaron and Tarkovsky all in a film that lacked what makes each individual great.
This in re: THE REVENANT -- I'd only go further and say THE REVENANT entirely lacked what made each individual and their films even remotely interesting for even a single twenty-fourth of a second.
dda1996a wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:35 am
For me it was basically Malick, Herzog, Cuaron and Tarkovsky all in a film that lacked what makes each individual great.
This in re: THE REVENANT -- I'd only go further and say THE REVENANT entirely lacked what made each individual and their films even remotely interesting for even a single twenty-fourth of a second.
In terms of an artistic point of view, I'd agree with you, although the technical merits of that film are almost all off the charts. That wasn't enough to rescue the video game-y look and cliched flashback devices, etc. Which is a shame, because there's the components of an excellent film in that one, where I'd probably say that the others I've seen (21 Grams, Babel, and Birdman) stunk from the head.
I've only seen Babel, Birdman and The Revenant and the only one I really love is Birdman. Babel I thought was a bit overwrought for my tastes and Revenant lacked cohesion (Despite having some great set pieces.) in my mind particularly there at the end. I vastly preferred the other film set in a hellish winter landscape released that year, The Hateful Eight.
I turned off BABEL because it just seemed a little too familiar with the multiple storyline schtick, the most memorable aspect of BIRDMAN was the cup of Sprite I thoroughly enjoyed while that foolishness was going on onscreen, and THE REVENANT was one of the most absolute wastes of my time and money in recent years. Some cool tech merits can't cover up the utter absence of anything else going on.
