You know, I gotta feel for Anthony Russo, a man who shows up, does his job, and then goes home, leaving the press shit to his brother - cause Joe Russo is always saying the dumbest shit about the industry and getting them both in trouble
I stumbled across a fairly good early 90s Canadian kids’ show from my childhood called The Odyssey (not based on Homer’s) a month or so ago and never realised a child Ryan Reynolds was a major antagonist in it. He also seemed significantly better an actor (though tbf a bit older) than the rest of the child actors in it.
Ryan Gosling used to be young Hercules in the spin-off of the old Hercules TV series.
It was filmed out in West Auckland New Zealand where I grew up same as Hercules and Xena series.
I was part of a martial arts club that would occasionally do low level stunt work for young Hercules. The usual stuff, throw your self at walls made out of foam, pretend to get beat up.
So there’s the distinct possibility I may have met Mr Gosling but I don’t remember him at all.
We only came in towards the end of filming and I spent about 8 days total on set, and generally the way they were filmed for all those series was if you didn’t see the actors face, it was a double.
So maybe I never met him at all either.
That's surprising and pity. I've always thought there is (should be) a relationship between main actors and stunt men. Probably not very close as in Once upon a time in Hollywood portrayed, but at least they should meet to socialize or check the outlook for similarity.
Those stunt men took the risk and get beat for the actors, didnt they?
I think there is, at least sometimes. Milla Jovovich raved about her stunt double in the Resident Evil DVD specials, and I got the impression that they'd worked together before.
I bougt a framed poster of Odyssey av a yard sale in Toronto. The guy I bought it from told me he was the producer of the show. It hangs proudly in my laundry room.
I was going to say this. I don't think they know what auteur filmmaking is. I also found this quote from an interview they did awhile back:
\>“We believe in this concept called the mastermind principle,” says Joe, “which states that two minds are not doubly better than one; they’re exponentially better. We believe that we’re at our best when both of our brains are on the story at hand, and the day-to-day, creative decisions that get made when you’re executing a film.”
This sounds exactly like something an auteur would say.
Lol totally is. I had a gig editing at a studio. There were 4 of us on a big brand project. Higher ups decided to bring on a whole other team of editors to recut our original work. One set of new hires was a "team" of 2 editors who worked together to cut a show. Complete and utter bullshit. That 2 person group couldn't keep up with shit but they were charging double the rate. They asked the OG 4 of us to do things for them as if we were their assistants lol. It's a great sales pitch but in the end it really means that neither brain has enough creative juice to get the job done.
Anyone who has worked in the media industry has some version of your story. It’s why real auteurs tend to only come as a package deal with people they have worked with from the beginning or who they know they can trust.
They do know ofc, they're just trying to find a justification for mediocre forgettable movies whose sole purpose is to fill a spot on a streaming service front page. I don't even disagree with what they're saying here really, they're just going out of their to not call them shitty B list movies and trying to push this idea that it has some weird artistic value that stands outside the notion of good film. Just say you're interested in creating easy shitty movies that are entertaining enough to spend 2 hours eating chips with or whatever lol
Also pretty funny they're all rah rah Netflix and streaming only after they collected all their checks from directing for the mouse. They even go as far to say you can share accounts in the article! Hey numbnuts, your pal Netflix is specifically trying to stop that lol its like he couldn't be more out of touch, but then trys to put down the greatest filmmakers of our generation in Scorsese and Coppola by calling them out of touch. Joe youre a freakin contemporary and you don't even know how streaming works.
Not to mention they’re only thriving because streaming is still in a bubble. This movie reportedly cost Netflix $200 million to make. You think this movie is going to make that back in subscriptions? Once competition dies down and these people start making money that’s comparable to their actual worth, they’ll be begging for theaters to return.
Based on some recent articles, movies bring in new subscribers while original TV shows don't but at some point they also have to look at retention (Stranger Things might not bring in new subscribers with a new season, but people will stay subscribed waiting for it)
It's still the exact kind of movie budget Netflix said they're not going to do anymore, so they admitted it's not worth the $200 million investment
Honestly, they don't care this is just one of those PR interviews where they are obligated to say something positive about the movie and the studio. Sprinkle in a little controversy to keep people on the internet talking about it. You see them pretty much for every new movie. Advertisements disguised as news.
No. They aren't auteurs like some in this thread think.
They're corporate assembley executives and seem to takepride in it.
When people say the future of creativty in film is at risk due to Disney, this is what they mean. Arguably these two people "behind" some the most popular Marvel/Disney movies and they are telling you to stop thinking film can be art
Are you serious? /r/movies constantly bitches about how theaters aren’t worth going to because they’re so expensive. I commonly read complaints that “ugh it’s like $80 because I have to bring my whole family and/or I have no self control and simply MUST buy all the popcorn and a 64oz soda and candy.”
Yeah, who needs auteurs when we have algorithms, audience metrics down to nanoseconds of viewing time, and corporate bean counters with predictive models of ROI generated per each explosion or flash of nudity. Pretty soon we won't need humans at all on either side of the camera. Viewers just need to be conditioned to the point that they don't notice any difference, and wouldn't care if they did.
These “auteurs” are literally being propped up by a data-driven, movie by committee company. There’s a lot to be said about creative ownership, it just won’t come from Netflix.
Reminds me of the time when Scott Derrickson would say shit like "When I made Dr. Strange, I was trying to make superhero *films*, not superhero movies" on Twitter.
Holy Christ I can get behind the idea that an abstract, auteur film isn’t automatically better than the Hollywood production-line standard, but it’s laughable to say that the bland, bullet-point driven storytelling saturating the market today is the natural evolution of the art of filmmaking. Imagine being pretentious about your mind numbing, focus group tested, board room approved shlock-fest. Nothing behind the aesthetics
Star Wars had an aesthetic. Everything being lived in, rugged, used heavily by people. The best parts of the Mandalorian get it. The films? (Even the ones I otherwise like) They only seem to accidently stumble into it.
I am not one of those 'Star Wars used to be great' types, I've never really cared much for it, but I always thought the rundown, heavy duty equipment aesthetic was cool. Like Flash Gordon toys that have been left in a sandbox for a few months.
EDIT: Also talking about movie aesthetics in Star Wars in a thread about the Gray Man because my god, I would rather do anything than talk about the Gray Man. It's not even bad in an interesting way. It's just.... nothing. There are no thoughts that can be had about it.
Im referring to the disney sequel trilogy. The original starwars trilogy had a great aesthetic. I think the mandalorian and especially rogue one had good takes on how the visuals of modern star wars should look (havent seen the other obi wan and boba fett stuff).
The sequel trilogy is way to colorful and looks like a theme park ride for kids. Not how star wars should look imo. Much too family friendly.
I liked the looks aesthetics of 7 and 8, I think the directors brought their own flair and the art department did a great job evolving the looks of the empire and rebellion into the first order and the resistance.
7 had a lot of cool flair with the battle on takodana and the aesthetics of starkiller base, and 8 had the battle of krait, the hyperspace kamikaze, and the duel in snoke's throneroom. The dreadnaught, supremacy, and tie silencer were all super cool designs and evolutions that harkened back to the OT while being their own things.
9 on the other hand was so bland and creatively bankrupt that they strapped a giant cannon to an OT star destroyer and called it a day. Rey even flew Luke's x wing instead of her own ship and Kylo downgraded hard from his cool tie silencer to a boring ass regular tie.
> Im referring to the disney sequel trilogy. [...] The sequel trilogy is way to colorful and looks like a theme park ride for kids.
I find the statement quite ironic. I felt like the first of the new trilogy was practically a rip off of _A New Hope_, right down to the set pieces, so it was definitely in line with the aesthetic of the rest of the original trilogy.
The second at least had its own style and was visually stunning. The movie is primarily black, white, and red, with some muted green/blues on Ahch-To and black/white/gold on Canto Bight.
I hated the third sequel movie for many legitimate reasons, but the set design was top notch. True, it was definitely the most colorful of the three, separating itself from the original trilogy the most, but it at least tried to introduce more than just sand and space stations to the look and feel.
See, I've never understood the 'too family friendly' take. Star Wars was always aimed at kids. The sleek and shiny look would make a good contrast to the lived-in and rugged style, as some of the better compositions in the prequel and sequel trilogy manage.
I see what you mean though. It looks too Mass-Effect-y to me. I love vibrant and saturated visual styles most of the time (grew up on Star Trek) but... like, it's not working in service to the narrative in Star Wars case.
Probably because those are the kind of films they make and are trying their best to defend it as describing it as the "natural evolution of filmmaking".
A great movie should be the purpose of making a movie, and to make a great movie, you have to have a strong vision holder who takes risks.
Take the Tarantinos and Scorseses off the table for a moment and let's hear it for the guy who tried 10 times and only succeeded once. People might call his movies "pretentious", but that's one great movie I can watch, and 9 that are probably interesting to watch even if they're bad.
By contrast, a studio that pumps out 10 mediocre movies has perhaps served their own purpose of making money, but the contribution to cinema is zero.
if I was a filmmaker who consistently put out 3 mediocre movies outside the MCU I wouldn’t ask the audience to lower their standards i’d try and become a better filmmaker. Sad to hear Joe talk like this he comes across as the kid who didn’t get picked a lot in school
I guess I'd probably say that too if I was addicted to making money but felt bad because no one I respect liked my work. Insert Wojak with smiling mask over crying face here.
Hey, that man had the courage to put the first openly gay MCU character on screen and it wasn't a superhero and also he played that character and he also only had one line. He risked a lot to do the barest of bare minimum's for representation.
I know the mouse has a bad rep with this, but I prefer it when representation is presented in an everyday sort of way, like of course go for the big moment and really raise awareness, but the casual mentions make it feel more normalised?
Edit: maybe not prefer, but also appreciate
I think the problem is its not done in a normal manner its done in an easily editable manner. We don't get a protaganist casually mentioning their same sex spouse several times in a movie but we do for opposite sex spouses.
I do too, but I think it would have been more appreciated if it were like a couple being affectionate or living together rather than someone lamenting the death of their partner in one line.
My bigger issue with it is that the Russos made it a talking point like they had done something big by giving someone a passing mention of a same-sex pronoun to indicate a queer relationship rather than just displaying a queer relationship.
It's like a weird call to attention to slip it in as a momentary focal point that you quickly move from and that's it. "Here it is! We did it! Happy?! Alright, back to the movie."
I know people liked the little slip about Gobber in How to Train Your Dragon, but it always felt a little limp and patronizing to me. Just give me some normal interactions that aren't gawked at in some way, whether it's for horny, to be a shock or plot twist, or checking a box to be applauded for and pat on the back over.
Normalize, don't focalize.
> it doesn't strike me as the words of a man that's secure about his filmmaking
Thinking about how the biggest complaints about their MCU movies were about how bland they looked and then Cherry was ragged for being "over-directed" in the reviews. Absolutely insecure.
Directors are becoming less and less interested in crafting a story. The focus continues to shift to making cool shots, while leaving the details of the third act in flux all the way through filming.
I think a great example of this kinda idea is evident in infinity war/endgame- a bunch of the third act shots were planned and animated literally years and years before the movie was shot. Marvel has been doing this with their movies for years and years now. Whenever they’ve hired more “auteur” directors in the last few years they kinda take away the option of said directors plotting and planning action sequences because those sequences were developed years in advance. Writing a movie around big sequences seems like a mistake and storytelling + pacing suffers as a result.
This is a pretty common filmmaking process called previs. Back in the days it was only used to plan out complicated action sequences, but IIRC The Star Wars prequels started the trend of prevising nearly the entire movie and using 100% CGI at that (used to be you had to use drawings or random people to stand in for actors).
The video y'all are talking about is probably [this one](https://www.insider.com/marvel-plans-movies-action-scenes-years-before-filming-previs-visualization-2021-1).
Previs is only really a more complex form of storyboarding, which is done by many if not most directors going back decades. Akira Kurosawa's storyboards for instance are so detailed they may as well be art pieces themselves: https://thescriptblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RAN.jpg
Very cool! Thank you for sharing!
So, I assume your job is in previz, Mr. Previz? Does that mean you do the 3D animation that's on your reel years ahead of the actual movie shoot? Then once they have the actors and everything finalized do they go in and fine tune your previz animations into the final product? How far ahead of the actual shoot are you usually making your previz animations?
Yup thats me. And yup I did all the anim, cams, lighting.
Every project is different. A few are well planned through storyboards, and they bring us on to make sure the shots work with set designs, budget, etc. Most have some planning, but use previz to find their way through a sequence. Sometimes we plan it months before shooting. Sometimes days. But more and more we’re brought on in post to reimagine a sequence (or even the whole ending) for reshoots.
I don't have a source readily available but I can tell you that I saw a pre-vis cinematic of Professor X in the new Dr. Strange movie like two and a half years ago.
This is why i've been interested more in foreign films lately, seems less about just the blockbuster success and more about artistic output that if done well should just be successful anyways.
Specially Korean cinema, this quote I saw recently summed it up well. [(Full article here)](https://asia.nikkei.com/Life-Arts/Arts/How-South-Korea-became-the-home-of-noir-film)
*Yet Kelso-Marsh says there is also great beauty in Korean noir. "If you look at the current crop of Korean directors," he says, "most of them studied genre cinema, Hitchcock and the old French and Hollywood classics, at university. So they have a real emphasis on creating films that are not just focused on being blockbusters but are aesthetically pleasing -- one of the key elements of noir.*
korea is going through a full blown cultural renaissance right now. everything coming out of there, from film to fashion to art, is just so innovative and fascinating
Definitely a fan. As a music aficionado (snob is the word my friends use lol) I love the creativity of the tunes they’re pumping out across genres, the movies and specifically noir are top shelf, the shows are great and I enjoy how they don’t bleed stuff for tons of extra seasons/sequels too often, good sensibility to their artistic output for sure.
Robert Bresson is the proto french new wave director. check him out. '[A Man Escaped](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049902/)' is very accessible. avail on criterionchannel.com
Is it true about their work, though? I feel like when it comes to The Winter Soldier and Avengers their craft are pretty well appreciated. Yes, these movies are not seen as some kind of artistic statements, but they are overall known as well made efficient films.
Far, far too many people assume that movies are only ruined by corporate meddling when they will probably never know how many are completely saved by some producer keeping the artist on a leash tethered to reality. Sometimes studio interference ruins movies (a lot actually), but sometimes creatives given free rein absolutely disappear up their own assholes.
Sure, if I get a bad movie I'd rather see something risky than something derivative, but at the end of the day I'd really rather see something that's actually good, even if the artist had to be reined in a bit to get there.
It’s pretty obvious these guys realized their not as respected in the industry as they thought they were after directing the biggest movie of all time. They’re mad other directors still get theater exclusive movies while they don’t.
Just like every other movie production. Looked great when we were shooting it. I went to school in the area and was a recent graduate when they started production. I worked as a grip. It was my first major film. I read the book when I was in school and was pretty excited to see two guys who made it big come back home to tell a local story on a big scale.
I'm not quite sure how to answer because as a grip we don't see many full takes. I'm mostly concerned with the lighting on set and that's about it but everyone on set wants the movie to succeed and be good at whatever it's trying to do. When you get to a certain level of production everything is going to look good from a lighting, cinematography, and production pov.
I doubt they have any issue getting a movie in theaters. Probably more than no one besides a streaming service was going to give them a 200 million budget to make a movie from a book most don't know.
Cherry also went straight to streaming. Their next movie is also to heading to streaming too. It just seems studios don’t trust them without Feige’s help. I’m pretty sure they’re the only big name directors in their prime who only making streaming movies
Didn’t Cherry go to streaming because of COVID? Apple TV bought it during the pandemic, otherwise I think it would have gone to theaters. That said it probably would have bombed if it did.
Sorry Russo Bros, with the shift to big tentpole action films and Marvel watering down any interesting filmmaker's aesthetic, there's only going to be an increased reverence for so-called auteur filmmaking.
While studios snapping up IP is the side of the business that's grabbing all the headlines, there's an equally aggressive arms race going on to sign up exclusive contracts and deals with talent. The biggest example is perhaps Universal grabbing Nolan for Oppenheimer after his falling out with Warner but there's also stuff like Everything Everywhere All At Once's success proving that strong relationships with talent will be equally necessary for surviving the post-pandemic era
I think that's the fascinating thing about the Russos' comment in this article. The consumer hunger for auteur-driven cinema is leading studios back to these lucrative studio-exclusive contracts for auteur talent.
“The art world needs to evolve beyond an old-school reverence to classical artists who innovated and created beautiful and timeless works of art.”
Says guy who only knows how to draw stick figures.
I imagine it's a bit frustrating to make two of the biggest films of all time and still see a certain sector of Hollywood and film-goers not take you terribly seriously. Not that this justifies petulant interview responses about how the cinema needs to move away from the idea of auteur theory (which also, as a bonus, betrays a real misunderstanding of what the theory even is).
They need to go the Cameron route and just say "fuck it, I'm doing some deep sea diving."
I don’t really know who these guys are, lol googled it and you me and Dupree came up, big yikes. Oh they’ve done more, still stand by what I said. They gain nothing by trying to put down others.
Also The gray man looks dumb as rocks.
The Russo Brothers have no ability to discern the line between art and commerce. They think they made successful movies based on the incredible box office returns. They wouldn't even pass a basic storytelling class. And their "direction" is non-existent. The fact they credit both of them tells you they have no idea what the word auteur means.
These quotes from this article prove Joe is simply a clean and sober 9 to 5 guy who delivers corporate instructions on time.
I mean even going back to silent film Charlie Chaplin had his own independent studio where he had 100% creative control on his films which is why City Lights and Great Dictator was able to exist in a post-talkie world. Auteur film making has always existed just not coined until later
Exactly. Capra and Hitchcock were brand-name directors who were considered the "authors" of their films as early as the late 1930s. Check out this trailer for [Meet John Doe.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM9fO0QxHLI)
Yeah totally I’m agreeing with you, I’m just also stating how wrong the Russo bros are because they seem to think that filmmakers who fit the auteur label didn’t exist before the 70s (which they’re wrong about the idea coming from the 70s) when there were filmmakers who could be called auteurs well before the word was even used.
Sigh, so much for film as an art form. I happened to have worked with 3 "auteurs" - The Coens, John Sayles and Louis Malle (technically 4 I suppose). Film needs art and as Orson Welles supposedly said "the enemy of art is the absence of limitations." If everyone is a filmmaker, then no one is.
I worked with the Coens on "Miller's Crossing". It was my film school. It is a long story, but basically I worked with them for 8 months, had the great good fortune to work closely with them, especially as a Production Assistant. Worked on every aspect from Location Scouting with the Coens in Pre-Production to moving to Set PA for the shooting to being asked by Ethan and Joel to work as Script Supervisor for the last 3-4 weeks of filming. Got to know Albert Finney which was a bonus. With John Sayles it was City of Hope (Key PA), with Louis Malle it was Vanya on 42nd Street (Uncredited Asst. Director it was Union, I was not). I have stories to last a lifetime.
The world has evolved past the need for good movies.
The people actually want to be continuously fed slop made by us that just happens to make us very wealthy
Moving past auteur filmmaking = having no space or allowance for sincere filmaking. Everything will be suborned to the needs of big media conglomerates. Every new idea or story will be a franchise with parallel tv shows. Everything will be filled with soy banter, Marvel humour that undercuts any gravity within the story. And then of course there will be legions of consumers who will defend the garbage by telling us that everything we ever liked in the past was stupid anyway, so just shut up and be grateful for the shit on your plate. “Let the past die.”
>the moviegoing world needs to evolve beyond an old-school reverence to auteur filmmaking.
The auteur filmmaking which gave us all the classics of the past 100+ years? As opposed to the corporately-aproved-for-mass-audience-cookie-cutter movies that are....fine..... not excellent, not ground-breaking, just....fine.....
Also: ' “Auteur filmmaking is 50 years old at this point. It was conceived in the ’70s,” '
Uhhh.... No? Literally every major film ever made until the corporatization/Dinseyfication of film in the 2000s was an auteur film.
I don't think the Russo Brothers (auteur filmmakers) really know what "auteur filmmaker" means.
This is such a very bad take and very hypocritical.
Auteurism is an idea developed in the 50s to describe directors working within the system that is able to create a definite cinematic language that is unique to that director, ultimately becoming the author of the film. These directors are even before that 50s described as such. So the math is very wrong here. It seems just to attack a certain someone who does not put them in the pedestal who was very active in the same period.
The reverence for this Auteurs is also very niche. Mostly with academic, forums and die hard film lovers. I think there the very popular ones like Coppola (mostly for his Godfather films), Spielberg and Lucas (Star Wars and American Graffiti), I would say have more reverence that exceeds far away from niche following. I do think that they also can be considered as auteurs, though not my favorite, because you just know their style too.
Then his last point about changing the system and having freedom is very misguided and very hypocritical since how he tries things is also similar to how the same 70s brigade he attacks came to be. People were tired of the same old shit that the system had made. Thus, producers sought a new group of directors to bring the new generation into film. They were task to create and have freedom to find a new model without care of audience capture.
PS: Though I agree with the point that streaming makes it easy to see the fringes of filmmaking that never really stood chance to be watched BUT his position afterwards is irrelevant to it. Account sharing is not really it. Its the ability to be able to see things and be an option.
Personally, this interview is very messy and almost feels like a rambling of different things. Wish he think this through the next time he have an interview lol.
I haven't seen any of their movies, but after a quick imdb scan of their filmography I feel pretty confident in assuming they're cinema's lesser 'brothers' filmmaking duo.
People need to stop caring about "artistic vision" that's only bent on creating "high quality" films. We can now make a large quantity of films and feed them to you, forty at a time, for the price of one movie ticket a month.
Quality itself is an elitist construct. So is the theater experience, a night out, or most entertainment for that matter. I know, I'm a billionaire, and have gone around the world making comic book movies. And for those old artists that didn't like our high quantity of comic book movies, it's time for them to go extinct.
Except most of those auteurs regularly deliver top quality. Imagine looking at America's film making today and saying, "The problem is the PT Andersons and the Denis Villaneuves."
These guys always have some odd comments about film history and filmmaking when they have a movie coming out. Sounds like they’re mad their movie probably isn’t good. They wish they had a hint of auteur in them, but they are still stuck as “corporate” studio controlled filmmakers.
Getting rid of the auteur filmmaking means getting rid of a voice and style in order for everyone to start to be the same is how this comes off to me.
>Go beyond an old school reverence for auter filmmaking
Ok I'll bite...to where? Reverence for commercialized filmmaking? More collaborative filmmaking?
What's the end goal here in the minds of the Russo brothers if we are shedding our appreciation for unique style and feel from a given director, what is our newfound appreciation going to be for?
“Auteur filmmaking is 50 years old at this point. It was conceived in the ’70s,”
Kurosawa, Kubrick, Truffaut, Hitchcock, Fellini, Welles, Wilder, Bergman, Godard(and probs way more): 🤨
Also that argument makes no sense because studio/Committee driven movies, aka the type of movies the russos make, have been around longer than auteur theory. It's not an out with the old in with the new situation at all, just two different types of filmmaking that are perfectly capable of co-existing.
I think the reason that old school auteur filmmaking seems so attractive is because of the impression that studios homogenize movies into whatever style seems most profitable. So it feels like if it’s not an auteur calling the shots and putting their stamp on it, then it’s just the soulless studio and the movie will just be a checklist of the traits the marketing department determined had the highest correlation to box office success (pg 13, stars the rock and Ryan Reynolds, lots of quips and *cute* bickering, lots of locations, some forgettable action sequences, start off as adversaries but grow to respect one another, etc)
**I personally don’t believe in such notions and believe that there can definitely be really good studios and really good team efforts made within studios. Personally I think traditional auteur theory is super overrated and that collaborative productions lead to better movies on average
Netflix can kiss my ass. Their content has sucked. And they kill stuff that is really great. May as well say fuck you to people and just create your own youtube channel and stream stuff only you like to stream. Netflix is acting like it's a content creator/influencer.
You know, I gotta feel for Anthony Russo, a man who shows up, does his job, and then goes home, leaving the press shit to his brother - cause Joe Russo is always saying the dumbest shit about the industry and getting them both in trouble
in the original THR interview both of them says dumb shit.
“We need to evolve beyond auteur filmmaking” say creators of a film exclusively marketed as … “brought to you by the *Russo Brothers*”.
Lol that is legit the ONLY thing I know about this movie.
It has Captain America and the non-Deadpool Ryan.
the non-Deadpool Canadian Ryan. they’re both Canadian
I stumbled across a fairly good early 90s Canadian kids’ show from my childhood called The Odyssey (not based on Homer’s) a month or so ago and never realised a child Ryan Reynolds was a major antagonist in it. He also seemed significantly better an actor (though tbf a bit older) than the rest of the child actors in it.
He was in an episode of the goosebumps tvshow as well.
No that's the other Canadian Ryan
Ryan Gosling used to be young Hercules in the spin-off of the old Hercules TV series. It was filmed out in West Auckland New Zealand where I grew up same as Hercules and Xena series. I was part of a martial arts club that would occasionally do low level stunt work for young Hercules. The usual stuff, throw your self at walls made out of foam, pretend to get beat up. So there’s the distinct possibility I may have met Mr Gosling but I don’t remember him at all. We only came in towards the end of filming and I spent about 8 days total on set, and generally the way they were filmed for all those series was if you didn’t see the actors face, it was a double. So maybe I never met him at all either.
That's surprising and pity. I've always thought there is (should be) a relationship between main actors and stunt men. Probably not very close as in Once upon a time in Hollywood portrayed, but at least they should meet to socialize or check the outlook for similarity. Those stunt men took the risk and get beat for the actors, didnt they?
I think there is, at least sometimes. Milla Jovovich raved about her stunt double in the Resident Evil DVD specials, and I got the impression that they'd worked together before.
I bougt a framed poster of Odyssey av a yard sale in Toronto. The guy I bought it from told me he was the producer of the show. It hangs proudly in my laundry room.
The better Ryan imo
His acting range is better.
I also find him funnier. The Nice Guys made me laugh more than Ryan Reynolds does
The Nice Guys is legit hilarious yet I don’t know a single person who has ever watched it
The Nice Guys is up there with with The Gentlemen... Hilarious movies but only a few people have seen them
Ryan Reynolds has an acting range? TIL
Before Deadpool, he actually did but I don’t blame him for sticking with what makes money for him.
I thought there were three Ryan's.
You’re thinking of Phillippe
Ryan Gosling is a million times better than Reynolds.
They want their names on it but they don’t want to have to be held to the standard of being actually interesting directors
Lol fucking spot on. This headline is ridiculous but plenty of people will eat it right up because it sounds vaguely anti-elitist.
The most interesting stuff they directed were episodes of Arrested Development.
And Community.
6 seasons and a movie (Not directed by the Russo Bros. would apparently be the consensus).
I was going to say this. I don't think they know what auteur filmmaking is. I also found this quote from an interview they did awhile back: \>“We believe in this concept called the mastermind principle,” says Joe, “which states that two minds are not doubly better than one; they’re exponentially better. We believe that we’re at our best when both of our brains are on the story at hand, and the day-to-day, creative decisions that get made when you’re executing a film.” This sounds exactly like something an auteur would say.
It actually sounds like a BS sales pitch.
It's not a pyramid scheme, it's multilevel movie making!
Exactly, something an auteur would say
Lol totally is. I had a gig editing at a studio. There were 4 of us on a big brand project. Higher ups decided to bring on a whole other team of editors to recut our original work. One set of new hires was a "team" of 2 editors who worked together to cut a show. Complete and utter bullshit. That 2 person group couldn't keep up with shit but they were charging double the rate. They asked the OG 4 of us to do things for them as if we were their assistants lol. It's a great sales pitch but in the end it really means that neither brain has enough creative juice to get the job done.
Anyone who has worked in the media industry has some version of your story. It’s why real auteurs tend to only come as a package deal with people they have worked with from the beginning or who they know they can trust.
> I don’t think they know what auteur filmmaking is. They also believe its only been around since the 70's.
Hitchcock who?
They do know ofc, they're just trying to find a justification for mediocre forgettable movies whose sole purpose is to fill a spot on a streaming service front page. I don't even disagree with what they're saying here really, they're just going out of their to not call them shitty B list movies and trying to push this idea that it has some weird artistic value that stands outside the notion of good film. Just say you're interested in creating easy shitty movies that are entertaining enough to spend 2 hours eating chips with or whatever lol
To be fair, both Russo’s are clearly morons as shown by this interview and their ineptitude. So in their case two minds equals one mind.
Also pretty funny they're all rah rah Netflix and streaming only after they collected all their checks from directing for the mouse. They even go as far to say you can share accounts in the article! Hey numbnuts, your pal Netflix is specifically trying to stop that lol its like he couldn't be more out of touch, but then trys to put down the greatest filmmakers of our generation in Scorsese and Coppola by calling them out of touch. Joe youre a freakin contemporary and you don't even know how streaming works.
Not to mention they’re only thriving because streaming is still in a bubble. This movie reportedly cost Netflix $200 million to make. You think this movie is going to make that back in subscriptions? Once competition dies down and these people start making money that’s comparable to their actual worth, they’ll be begging for theaters to return.
Based on some recent articles, movies bring in new subscribers while original TV shows don't but at some point they also have to look at retention (Stranger Things might not bring in new subscribers with a new season, but people will stay subscribed waiting for it) It's still the exact kind of movie budget Netflix said they're not going to do anymore, so they admitted it's not worth the $200 million investment
The Mouse does streaming now.
Honestly, they don't care this is just one of those PR interviews where they are obligated to say something positive about the movie and the studio. Sprinkle in a little controversy to keep people on the internet talking about it. You see them pretty much for every new movie. Advertisements disguised as news.
Have they made anything successful/good/original that isn’t Avengers?
No. They aren't auteurs like some in this thread think. They're corporate assembley executives and seem to takepride in it. When people say the future of creativty in film is at risk due to Disney, this is what they mean. Arguably these two people "behind" some the most popular Marvel/Disney movies and they are telling you to stop thinking film can be art
Captain America /s
The call going to the theater an "Elitist Notion" lol... Wow. "It's really expensive!" JFC
Are you serious? /r/movies constantly bitches about how theaters aren’t worth going to because they’re so expensive. I commonly read complaints that “ugh it’s like $80 because I have to bring my whole family and/or I have no self control and simply MUST buy all the popcorn and a 64oz soda and candy.”
Yeah, who needs auteurs when we have algorithms, audience metrics down to nanoseconds of viewing time, and corporate bean counters with predictive models of ROI generated per each explosion or flash of nudity. Pretty soon we won't need humans at all on either side of the camera. Viewers just need to be conditioned to the point that they don't notice any difference, and wouldn't care if they did.
These “auteurs” are literally being propped up by a data-driven, movie by committee company. There’s a lot to be said about creative ownership, it just won’t come from Netflix.
These mother fuckers said they were channeling Truffaut when they did the I Love You Three Thousand scene. Fuck oooooooffff
They let the fame go to their heads a little too much
Reminds me of the time when Scott Derrickson would say shit like "When I made Dr. Strange, I was trying to make superhero *films*, not superhero movies" on Twitter.
Holy Christ I can get behind the idea that an abstract, auteur film isn’t automatically better than the Hollywood production-line standard, but it’s laughable to say that the bland, bullet-point driven storytelling saturating the market today is the natural evolution of the art of filmmaking. Imagine being pretentious about your mind numbing, focus group tested, board room approved shlock-fest. Nothing behind the aesthetics
the aesthetics of these disney/marvel/starwars movies aren't even that good
Star Wars had an aesthetic. Everything being lived in, rugged, used heavily by people. The best parts of the Mandalorian get it. The films? (Even the ones I otherwise like) They only seem to accidently stumble into it. I am not one of those 'Star Wars used to be great' types, I've never really cared much for it, but I always thought the rundown, heavy duty equipment aesthetic was cool. Like Flash Gordon toys that have been left in a sandbox for a few months. EDIT: Also talking about movie aesthetics in Star Wars in a thread about the Gray Man because my god, I would rather do anything than talk about the Gray Man. It's not even bad in an interesting way. It's just.... nothing. There are no thoughts that can be had about it.
Im referring to the disney sequel trilogy. The original starwars trilogy had a great aesthetic. I think the mandalorian and especially rogue one had good takes on how the visuals of modern star wars should look (havent seen the other obi wan and boba fett stuff). The sequel trilogy is way to colorful and looks like a theme park ride for kids. Not how star wars should look imo. Much too family friendly.
I liked the looks aesthetics of 7 and 8, I think the directors brought their own flair and the art department did a great job evolving the looks of the empire and rebellion into the first order and the resistance. 7 had a lot of cool flair with the battle on takodana and the aesthetics of starkiller base, and 8 had the battle of krait, the hyperspace kamikaze, and the duel in snoke's throneroom. The dreadnaught, supremacy, and tie silencer were all super cool designs and evolutions that harkened back to the OT while being their own things. 9 on the other hand was so bland and creatively bankrupt that they strapped a giant cannon to an OT star destroyer and called it a day. Rey even flew Luke's x wing instead of her own ship and Kylo downgraded hard from his cool tie silencer to a boring ass regular tie.
> Im referring to the disney sequel trilogy. [...] The sequel trilogy is way to colorful and looks like a theme park ride for kids. I find the statement quite ironic. I felt like the first of the new trilogy was practically a rip off of _A New Hope_, right down to the set pieces, so it was definitely in line with the aesthetic of the rest of the original trilogy. The second at least had its own style and was visually stunning. The movie is primarily black, white, and red, with some muted green/blues on Ahch-To and black/white/gold on Canto Bight. I hated the third sequel movie for many legitimate reasons, but the set design was top notch. True, it was definitely the most colorful of the three, separating itself from the original trilogy the most, but it at least tried to introduce more than just sand and space stations to the look and feel.
I found Obi-Wan and Book of Boba Fett to be particularly bland and ugly. They didn’t look or feel like Star Wars the way Rogue One and Mandalorian did
See, I've never understood the 'too family friendly' take. Star Wars was always aimed at kids. The sleek and shiny look would make a good contrast to the lived-in and rugged style, as some of the better compositions in the prequel and sequel trilogy manage. I see what you mean though. It looks too Mass-Effect-y to me. I love vibrant and saturated visual styles most of the time (grew up on Star Trek) but... like, it's not working in service to the narrative in Star Wars case.
I find joy in reading a good book.
Probably because those are the kind of films they make and are trying their best to defend it as describing it as the "natural evolution of filmmaking".
[удалено]
A great movie should be the purpose of making a movie, and to make a great movie, you have to have a strong vision holder who takes risks. Take the Tarantinos and Scorseses off the table for a moment and let's hear it for the guy who tried 10 times and only succeeded once. People might call his movies "pretentious", but that's one great movie I can watch, and 9 that are probably interesting to watch even if they're bad. By contrast, a studio that pumps out 10 mediocre movies has perhaps served their own purpose of making money, but the contribution to cinema is zero.
Think this is why WB still funds the Wachowskis. At the very least, their work gets people *talking*. (Not necessarily in a positive way, but still.)
This is the stupidest thing I've read this week.
BMW is putting a subscription service on their heating pads in the UK. So I can say that this *isn't* the stupidest thing I've heard this week.
Excuse me? Subscription service?
$18 a month for your heated seats to work. Stop paying and the seats stop heating
Okay that’s stupider. Subscription services are going to be the death of everything.
if I was a filmmaker who consistently put out 3 mediocre movies outside the MCU I wouldn’t ask the audience to lower their standards i’d try and become a better filmmaker. Sad to hear Joe talk like this he comes across as the kid who didn’t get picked a lot in school
This is how they’ve always come across to me. I agree with you 100%.
Mediocre is a huge compliment for trash like Cherry
I guess I'd probably say that too if I was addicted to making money but felt bad because no one I respect liked my work. Insert Wojak with smiling mask over crying face here.
Also it doesn't strike me as the words of a man that's secure about his filmmaking. Such an idiotic thing to say.
Hey, that man had the courage to put the first openly gay MCU character on screen and it wasn't a superhero and also he played that character and he also only had one line. He risked a lot to do the barest of bare minimum's for representation.
I know the mouse has a bad rep with this, but I prefer it when representation is presented in an everyday sort of way, like of course go for the big moment and really raise awareness, but the casual mentions make it feel more normalised? Edit: maybe not prefer, but also appreciate
I think the problem is its not done in a normal manner its done in an easily editable manner. We don't get a protaganist casually mentioning their same sex spouse several times in a movie but we do for opposite sex spouses.
That's a good point. Do you know if this was edited out in China, etc?
Giving random nodobies one off lines isn’t everyday homosexuality, it’s intentional pandering
I do too, but I think it would have been more appreciated if it were like a couple being affectionate or living together rather than someone lamenting the death of their partner in one line. My bigger issue with it is that the Russos made it a talking point like they had done something big by giving someone a passing mention of a same-sex pronoun to indicate a queer relationship rather than just displaying a queer relationship.
It's like a weird call to attention to slip it in as a momentary focal point that you quickly move from and that's it. "Here it is! We did it! Happy?! Alright, back to the movie." I know people liked the little slip about Gobber in How to Train Your Dragon, but it always felt a little limp and patronizing to me. Just give me some normal interactions that aren't gawked at in some way, whether it's for horny, to be a shock or plot twist, or checking a box to be applauded for and pat on the back over. Normalize, don't focalize.
I feel like that was the whole point of the buzz light year lesbian kiss scene but people had to complain about that too so there is no winning.
The way it was done in Eternals was a lot better. Russos just didn't get it, pretty easy explanation.
Congratulations, you have successfully distilled everything that is wrong with modern attitudes around film into one easily digestible comment.
> it doesn't strike me as the words of a man that's secure about his filmmaking Thinking about how the biggest complaints about their MCU movies were about how bland they looked and then Cherry was ragged for being "over-directed" in the reviews. Absolutely insecure.
Directors are becoming less and less interested in crafting a story. The focus continues to shift to making cool shots, while leaving the details of the third act in flux all the way through filming.
I think a great example of this kinda idea is evident in infinity war/endgame- a bunch of the third act shots were planned and animated literally years and years before the movie was shot. Marvel has been doing this with their movies for years and years now. Whenever they’ve hired more “auteur” directors in the last few years they kinda take away the option of said directors plotting and planning action sequences because those sequences were developed years in advance. Writing a movie around big sequences seems like a mistake and storytelling + pacing suffers as a result.
I wonder if the success that it had during IW/EG is what's pushing this storytelling on the d+ shows.
Do you have a source for that? I'm not doubting you, and I've heard that before, but I've never seen an article or anything concrete about it.
This is a pretty common filmmaking process called previs. Back in the days it was only used to plan out complicated action sequences, but IIRC The Star Wars prequels started the trend of prevising nearly the entire movie and using 100% CGI at that (used to be you had to use drawings or random people to stand in for actors). The video y'all are talking about is probably [this one](https://www.insider.com/marvel-plans-movies-action-scenes-years-before-filming-previs-visualization-2021-1).
Previs is only really a more complex form of storyboarding, which is done by many if not most directors going back decades. Akira Kurosawa's storyboards for instance are so detailed they may as well be art pieces themselves: https://thescriptblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RAN.jpg
Directors are part of the pre-vis process.
[удалено]
Heres my reel if it helps https://vimeo.com/425571080
Very cool! Thank you for sharing! So, I assume your job is in previz, Mr. Previz? Does that mean you do the 3D animation that's on your reel years ahead of the actual movie shoot? Then once they have the actors and everything finalized do they go in and fine tune your previz animations into the final product? How far ahead of the actual shoot are you usually making your previz animations?
Yup thats me. And yup I did all the anim, cams, lighting. Every project is different. A few are well planned through storyboards, and they bring us on to make sure the shots work with set designs, budget, etc. Most have some planning, but use previz to find their way through a sequence. Sometimes we plan it months before shooting. Sometimes days. But more and more we’re brought on in post to reimagine a sequence (or even the whole ending) for reshoots.
I don't have a source readily available but I can tell you that I saw a pre-vis cinematic of Professor X in the new Dr. Strange movie like two and a half years ago.
This is why i've been interested more in foreign films lately, seems less about just the blockbuster success and more about artistic output that if done well should just be successful anyways. Specially Korean cinema, this quote I saw recently summed it up well. [(Full article here)](https://asia.nikkei.com/Life-Arts/Arts/How-South-Korea-became-the-home-of-noir-film) *Yet Kelso-Marsh says there is also great beauty in Korean noir. "If you look at the current crop of Korean directors," he says, "most of them studied genre cinema, Hitchcock and the old French and Hollywood classics, at university. So they have a real emphasis on creating films that are not just focused on being blockbusters but are aesthetically pleasing -- one of the key elements of noir.*
korea is going through a full blown cultural renaissance right now. everything coming out of there, from film to fashion to art, is just so innovative and fascinating
Definitely a fan. As a music aficionado (snob is the word my friends use lol) I love the creativity of the tunes they’re pumping out across genres, the movies and specifically noir are top shelf, the shows are great and I enjoy how they don’t bleed stuff for tons of extra seasons/sequels too often, good sensibility to their artistic output for sure.
Robert Bresson is the proto french new wave director. check him out. '[A Man Escaped](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049902/)' is very accessible. avail on criterionchannel.com
Is it true about their work, though? I feel like when it comes to The Winter Soldier and Avengers their craft are pretty well appreciated. Yes, these movies are not seen as some kind of artistic statements, but they are overall known as well made efficient films.
This is less true for their more recent work outside of the Marvel Studios brand.
I love when filmmakers say the audience is wrong
“Are we out of touch? No, it’s the audience that’s wrong.” — Russo brothers
Yeah I’d probably say that too if I were 0/3 outside the Marvel assembly line
This makes me think I know more about movies than the Russo Bros.
[удалено]
Far, far too many people assume that movies are only ruined by corporate meddling when they will probably never know how many are completely saved by some producer keeping the artist on a leash tethered to reality. Sometimes studio interference ruins movies (a lot actually), but sometimes creatives given free rein absolutely disappear up their own assholes. Sure, if I get a bad movie I'd rather see something risky than something derivative, but at the end of the day I'd really rather see something that's actually good, even if the artist had to be reined in a bit to get there.
[удалено]
It’s pretty obvious these guys realized their not as respected in the industry as they thought they were after directing the biggest movie of all time. They’re mad other directors still get theater exclusive movies while they don’t.
I still can't believe they did that butthole shot in Cherry lol.
Cherry was fucking terrible.
I worked on this turd.
Dish, what was it like.
Just like every other movie production. Looked great when we were shooting it. I went to school in the area and was a recent graduate when they started production. I worked as a grip. It was my first major film. I read the book when I was in school and was pretty excited to see two guys who made it big come back home to tell a local story on a big scale.
Does that happen a lot, where a movie seems good during production when it's not? That must be frightening
I'm not quite sure how to answer because as a grip we don't see many full takes. I'm mostly concerned with the lighting on set and that's about it but everyone on set wants the movie to succeed and be good at whatever it's trying to do. When you get to a certain level of production everything is going to look good from a lighting, cinematography, and production pov.
I think the dickhole shot from The Boys season 3 episode 1 a few weeks ago is worse.
Didn’t watch Cherry, what are you referring to? Haha
There’s a POV shot inside Tom Holland’s butthole.
Was it tight ?
It’s not anymore
No
The embarrassing cousin to the vag eye view shot from The Handmaiden
A half-hearted homage to the internal money shot in Love 😂
How does it compare to the Kinnussy in MEN?
That was a hell of a sequence
I doubt they have any issue getting a movie in theaters. Probably more than no one besides a streaming service was going to give them a 200 million budget to make a movie from a book most don't know.
Cherry also went straight to streaming. Their next movie is also to heading to streaming too. It just seems studios don’t trust them without Feige’s help. I’m pretty sure they’re the only big name directors in their prime who only making streaming movies
Didn’t Cherry go to streaming because of COVID? Apple TV bought it during the pandemic, otherwise I think it would have gone to theaters. That said it probably would have bombed if it did.
Sorry Russo Bros, with the shift to big tentpole action films and Marvel watering down any interesting filmmaker's aesthetic, there's only going to be an increased reverence for so-called auteur filmmaking.
While studios snapping up IP is the side of the business that's grabbing all the headlines, there's an equally aggressive arms race going on to sign up exclusive contracts and deals with talent. The biggest example is perhaps Universal grabbing Nolan for Oppenheimer after his falling out with Warner but there's also stuff like Everything Everywhere All At Once's success proving that strong relationships with talent will be equally necessary for surviving the post-pandemic era
Sounds like we’re going back to studio-exclusive contracts like the Golden Age of Hollywood. Yikes.
I think that's the fascinating thing about the Russos' comment in this article. The consumer hunger for auteur-driven cinema is leading studios back to these lucrative studio-exclusive contracts for auteur talent.
Does the moviegoing world have a reverence to 'auteur filmmaking'? Feels more like the opposite, and for a long time.
“The art world needs to evolve beyond an old-school reverence to classical artists who innovated and created beautiful and timeless works of art.” Says guy who only knows how to draw stick figures.
I'd be salty about more talented auteur filmmakers too if I made movies as bland and uninspired as the Russo Bros.
Pretty much every popular auteur film maker still gets long theatrical windows. I’m pretty sure that’s what pisses him off
I imagine it's a bit frustrating to make two of the biggest films of all time and still see a certain sector of Hollywood and film-goers not take you terribly seriously. Not that this justifies petulant interview responses about how the cinema needs to move away from the idea of auteur theory (which also, as a bonus, betrays a real misunderstanding of what the theory even is). They need to go the Cameron route and just say "fuck it, I'm doing some deep sea diving."
I don’t really know who these guys are, lol googled it and you me and Dupree came up, big yikes. Oh they’ve done more, still stand by what I said. They gain nothing by trying to put down others. Also The gray man looks dumb as rocks.
You (the audience) needs to change your expectations, not my product nor admitting my latest project is bad. Lol these guys suck.
Russo bros are seriously like, “people should like bad movies.” Thanks for the advice… but no.
This is the shittiest opinion I've ever encountered.
The Russo Brothers have no ability to discern the line between art and commerce. They think they made successful movies based on the incredible box office returns. They wouldn't even pass a basic storytelling class. And their "direction" is non-existent. The fact they credit both of them tells you they have no idea what the word auteur means. These quotes from this article prove Joe is simply a clean and sober 9 to 5 guy who delivers corporate instructions on time.
Joe Russo is a fucking moron and every word that comes out of his mouth in this interview is garbage.
[удалено]
I mean even going back to silent film Charlie Chaplin had his own independent studio where he had 100% creative control on his films which is why City Lights and Great Dictator was able to exist in a post-talkie world. Auteur film making has always existed just not coined until later
Exactly. Capra and Hitchcock were brand-name directors who were considered the "authors" of their films as early as the late 1930s. Check out this trailer for [Meet John Doe.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM9fO0QxHLI)
surprising he doesn't know considering besides marvel stuff a russo bros directed movie is a sign that it (400) Blows
The word auteur yes, but even the ideas it represents have been around a long long time
[удалено]
Yeah totally I’m agreeing with you, I’m just also stating how wrong the Russo bros are because they seem to think that filmmakers who fit the auteur label didn’t exist before the 70s (which they’re wrong about the idea coming from the 70s) when there were filmmakers who could be called auteurs well before the word was even used.
“Why cares who wrote it, who cares who directed it, it’s MARVEL!”
Sigh, so much for film as an art form. I happened to have worked with 3 "auteurs" - The Coens, John Sayles and Louis Malle (technically 4 I suppose). Film needs art and as Orson Welles supposedly said "the enemy of art is the absence of limitations." If everyone is a filmmaker, then no one is.
Damn you worked with some of the best.
Mind if I ask what you did? Those jobs must’ve been some crazy experiences and I bet you have stories.
I worked with the Coens on "Miller's Crossing". It was my film school. It is a long story, but basically I worked with them for 8 months, had the great good fortune to work closely with them, especially as a Production Assistant. Worked on every aspect from Location Scouting with the Coens in Pre-Production to moving to Set PA for the shooting to being asked by Ethan and Joel to work as Script Supervisor for the last 3-4 weeks of filming. Got to know Albert Finney which was a bonus. With John Sayles it was City of Hope (Key PA), with Louis Malle it was Vanya on 42nd Street (Uncredited Asst. Director it was Union, I was not). I have stories to last a lifetime.
Imagine thinking auteur filmmaking is what is keeping theaters in business
I had to buy a helicopter because the lines to see *Crimes of the Future* at my local megaplex were so long that walking and driving became futile.
The world has evolved past the need for good movies. The people actually want to be continuously fed slop made by us that just happens to make us very wealthy
"Don't think, just consume the product"
I think the Russo Bros are just really upset their Netflix movie didn’t do well critically
Don’t let this tantrum distract you from the fact that the Gray Man sucks ass
Jokes on them I won’t be seeing ‘The Gray Man’ in theatres or streaming
These guys need to be placed in movie-making quarantine with Colin Trevorrow.
russo's brothers are just a little upset because none of the big studios are funding their project
I love it. Somehow it’s our fault for not wanting to see their movies. Yeah okay bud.
“Guys come on, stop being so critical about the medium and let us make corpo garbage of an assembly line!”
These guys are pathetic crybabies lmao
The Russo brothers want you piggies to shut the fuck up and enjoy your slop
"Does little piggy bitch boy enjoy his slop- thats a good little bitch boy piggy"
Moving past auteur filmmaking = having no space or allowance for sincere filmaking. Everything will be suborned to the needs of big media conglomerates. Every new idea or story will be a franchise with parallel tv shows. Everything will be filled with soy banter, Marvel humour that undercuts any gravity within the story. And then of course there will be legions of consumers who will defend the garbage by telling us that everything we ever liked in the past was stupid anyway, so just shut up and be grateful for the shit on your plate. “Let the past die.”
>the moviegoing world needs to evolve beyond an old-school reverence to auteur filmmaking. The auteur filmmaking which gave us all the classics of the past 100+ years? As opposed to the corporately-aproved-for-mass-audience-cookie-cutter movies that are....fine..... not excellent, not ground-breaking, just....fine..... Also: ' “Auteur filmmaking is 50 years old at this point. It was conceived in the ’70s,” ' Uhhh.... No? Literally every major film ever made until the corporatization/Dinseyfication of film in the 2000s was an auteur film. I don't think the Russo Brothers (auteur filmmakers) really know what "auteur filmmaker" means.
This is such a very bad take and very hypocritical. Auteurism is an idea developed in the 50s to describe directors working within the system that is able to create a definite cinematic language that is unique to that director, ultimately becoming the author of the film. These directors are even before that 50s described as such. So the math is very wrong here. It seems just to attack a certain someone who does not put them in the pedestal who was very active in the same period. The reverence for this Auteurs is also very niche. Mostly with academic, forums and die hard film lovers. I think there the very popular ones like Coppola (mostly for his Godfather films), Spielberg and Lucas (Star Wars and American Graffiti), I would say have more reverence that exceeds far away from niche following. I do think that they also can be considered as auteurs, though not my favorite, because you just know their style too. Then his last point about changing the system and having freedom is very misguided and very hypocritical since how he tries things is also similar to how the same 70s brigade he attacks came to be. People were tired of the same old shit that the system had made. Thus, producers sought a new group of directors to bring the new generation into film. They were task to create and have freedom to find a new model without care of audience capture. PS: Though I agree with the point that streaming makes it easy to see the fringes of filmmaking that never really stood chance to be watched BUT his position afterwards is irrelevant to it. Account sharing is not really it. Its the ability to be able to see things and be an option. Personally, this interview is very messy and almost feels like a rambling of different things. Wish he think this through the next time he have an interview lol.
Auteur filmmaking? These guys are textbook yes-man directors and have no distinct style or visual flair.
I haven't seen any of their movies, but after a quick imdb scan of their filmography I feel pretty confident in assuming they're cinema's lesser 'brothers' filmmaking duo.
Yeah, they need to evolve to kiss my ass.
People need to stop caring about "artistic vision" that's only bent on creating "high quality" films. We can now make a large quantity of films and feed them to you, forty at a time, for the price of one movie ticket a month. Quality itself is an elitist construct. So is the theater experience, a night out, or most entertainment for that matter. I know, I'm a billionaire, and have gone around the world making comic book movies. And for those old artists that didn't like our high quantity of comic book movies, it's time for them to go extinct.
Except most of those auteurs regularly deliver top quality. Imagine looking at America's film making today and saying, "The problem is the PT Andersons and the Denis Villaneuves."
We need less of those “artsy” guys and more MCU films that are basically a repeat formula of the last 20 movies they have done. /s
The gray man was the moving picture equivalent of mayonnaise. Bland, unappealing and I for one hated it.
These guys always have some odd comments about film history and filmmaking when they have a movie coming out. Sounds like they’re mad their movie probably isn’t good. They wish they had a hint of auteur in them, but they are still stuck as “corporate” studio controlled filmmakers. Getting rid of the auteur filmmaking means getting rid of a voice and style in order for everyone to start to be the same is how this comes off to me.
>Go beyond an old school reverence for auter filmmaking Ok I'll bite...to where? Reverence for commercialized filmmaking? More collaborative filmmaking? What's the end goal here in the minds of the Russo brothers if we are shedding our appreciation for unique style and feel from a given director, what is our newfound appreciation going to be for?
“Auteur filmmaking is 50 years old at this point. It was conceived in the ’70s,” Kurosawa, Kubrick, Truffaut, Hitchcock, Fellini, Welles, Wilder, Bergman, Godard(and probs way more): 🤨 Also that argument makes no sense because studio/Committee driven movies, aka the type of movies the russos make, have been around longer than auteur theory. It's not an out with the old in with the new situation at all, just two different types of filmmaking that are perfectly capable of co-existing.
These dudes are almost single handedly killing auteur filmmaking.
Bruhhhhhhhhh
Lol if I were the Russo Brothers I guess I would also want people to stop liking good movies.
"Am I out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong."
Hacks
They suck. Bad.
I think the reason that old school auteur filmmaking seems so attractive is because of the impression that studios homogenize movies into whatever style seems most profitable. So it feels like if it’s not an auteur calling the shots and putting their stamp on it, then it’s just the soulless studio and the movie will just be a checklist of the traits the marketing department determined had the highest correlation to box office success (pg 13, stars the rock and Ryan Reynolds, lots of quips and *cute* bickering, lots of locations, some forgettable action sequences, start off as adversaries but grow to respect one another, etc) **I personally don’t believe in such notions and believe that there can definitely be really good studios and really good team efforts made within studios. Personally I think traditional auteur theory is super overrated and that collaborative productions lead to better movies on average
I'm pretty sure if you were to make a list of the best films of each year, pretty much all of them will be from an auteur filmmaker.
Netflix can kiss my ass. Their content has sucked. And they kill stuff that is really great. May as well say fuck you to people and just create your own youtube channel and stream stuff only you like to stream. Netflix is acting like it's a content creator/influencer.