|
Post by ck100 on May 3, 2018 7:58:21 GMT
Some popular directors have done a film or two (or more) where they basically functioned as a "hired hand" and that the movie was far from being a personal film for them and mostly a commercial project. Not to say these films are bad. Some are actually good. But it's clear that these films were a "one for the studio", impersonal type of film for the director where they mainly functioned as a director-for-hire.
For example:
Martin Scorsese - The Color of Money, Cape Fear Brian De Palma - Mission: Impossible Spike Lee - Inside Man M. Night Shyamalan - After Earth Basically Francis Ford Coppola's output over the 80's and 90's
What are some choices you can think of?
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 3, 2018 9:39:18 GMT
I think I've heard that David Fincher directed Curious Case of Benjamin Button just so he could make Zodiac. Sounds believable to me. You want impersonal, the saccharine meladrama of Button is the furthest thing from Fincher's style.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on May 3, 2018 12:36:11 GMT
Ang Lee - Hulk
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 3, 2018 12:41:17 GMT
How insulted would Spike Lee be if I told him Inside Man is my favorite Spike Lee movie?
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on May 3, 2018 13:29:58 GMT
John Carpenter directing Christine, Starman, and Big Trouble in Little China.
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on May 3, 2018 14:41:39 GMT
Stanley Kubrick - Spartacus
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on May 3, 2018 15:47:27 GMT
William Friedkin:
The Hunted Rules Of Engagement
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on May 3, 2018 17:25:50 GMT
I think I've heard that David Fincher directed Curious Case of Benjamin Button just so he could make Zodiac. Sounds believable to me. You want impersonal, the saccharine meladrama of Button is the furthest thing from Fincher's style. I would have thought Panic Room would be more of a "hired hand" work for Fincher.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 3, 2018 17:46:15 GMT
I think I've heard that David Fincher directed Curious Case of Benjamin Button just so he could make Zodiac. Sounds believable to me. You want impersonal, the saccharine meladrama of Button is the furthest thing from Fincher's style. I would have thought Panic Room would be more of a "hired hand" work for Fincher. Hope not. Panic Room is probably my favorite thing he’s ever done, one of the few “Hitchcockian thrillers” that are actually Hitchcockian, in style and ethos. Just an excellent movie. I agree with moviebuffbrad that Benjamin Button is as impersonal and saccharine as they come—as well as deathly dull. Which is all too bad because the Fitzgerald story on which it’s based is a delightful bit of comic (!) prose. I’m not sure that Cape Fear counts as a ‘hired hand’ job for Scorsese; there’s a lot of artistry put into that movie, which is closer in tone, atmosphere, and characterization to The Night of the Hunter (which Scorsese loves) than to the original Cape Fear. I think he effectively tailored the material to himself even if said material is not particularly “Scorsesian”—ditto with De Palma and Mission: Impossible (that whole sequence with the gushing fish tank is pure De Palma). Also with Ang Lee and Hulk, which I liked far more than Lee’s more “important” efforts. The “one for the studio” terminology intrigues me; in The American Cinema, Sarris tells the story of how ‘30s critics would rib John Ford for making “studio” pictures yet how Ford was subtly putting artistry and personal style into the studio pictures. ( Wee Willie Winkie, with Shirley Temple, is his prime example; I’d also count the hilarious Edward G. Robinson self-parody The Whole Town’s Talking among that number.) How about Spielberg and Catch Me if You Can? I like that picture very much, but I can’t think of anything particularly Spielbergian about it. It might not have been done for the studio, but it seems like an effort to rest and recharge his batteries. Jurassic Park 2 and The War of the Worlds do seem like they were done just to make money. Many silent Hitchcocks (and a few sound ones) may count for this category.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on May 3, 2018 17:50:37 GMT
When I think of "hired hand" work, I think more in terms of a director doing a film because they need to pay off debt, need a hit film, etc. It's working for necessity. Some directors do "hired hand" work because the money or box office potential of a film could help finance a personal project they want to make. Just having a director do a film that is atypical of what they do isn't necessarily "hired hand" work. They could simply do it as a change of pace or because the project intrigues them. I think a lot of it has to do with their financial situation or current reputation.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on May 3, 2018 18:46:56 GMT
Another one I'd like to add is Sidney Lumet directing Guilt As Sin. Who would have thought that one day Lumet would be directing from a Larry Cohen script!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 19:00:21 GMT
Solo a star wars movie
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 3, 2018 20:42:58 GMT
Ed Wood? Seems like that was work for hire for Tim Burton as his style is totally absent.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 3, 2018 20:47:06 GMT
Ed Wood? Seems like that was work for hire for Tim Burton as his style is totally absent. Really? It seems like the most Burton-esque thing I know: the black and white, the outsider who still makes the story his own, the gallery of friends considered “freaks,” the close-ups… Also, from what I know, he considered it a very personal film.
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on May 3, 2018 20:47:20 GMT
Ed Wood? Seems like that was work for hire for Tim Burton as his style is totally absent. No, that was definitely a pet project of his as he's stated that Wood was his one of his favorite directors.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 3, 2018 20:52:57 GMT
Really? It seems like the most Burton-esque thing I know: the black and white, the outsider who still makes the story his own, the gallery of friends considered “freaks,” the close-ups… Also, from what I know, he considered it a very personal film. Oh yeah but I mean it doesnt have that signature style with the goofy props or maliciousness. Like the Penguin or the Headless Horseman. It's very mundane and constrained compared to his other work. I wouldnt have guessed he directed it other than the credit sequence.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on May 3, 2018 21:22:00 GMT
I'd disagree on Ed Wood. I don't think Burton did that film for commercial purposes, to help boost his career standing, etc. I think he did that out of genuine interest for the material. Unless their career is in the toilet and/or they need a box office hit, a director does an atypical film because they like the material, want to do something as a change of pace, is a pet project for them, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 3, 2018 23:54:56 GMT
I’m not sure that Cape Fear counts as a ‘hired hand’ job for Scorsese; there’s a lot of artistry put into that movie, which is closer in tone, atmosphere, and characterization to The Night of the Hunter (which Scorsese loves) than to the original Cape Fear. I think he effectively tailored the material to himself even if said material is not particularly “Scorsesian”—ditto with De Palma and Mission: Impossible (that whole sequence with the gushing fish tank is pure De Palma). Also with Ang Lee and Hulk, which I liked far more than Lee’s more “important” efforts. I remember around 91 it was said that Scorsese was going to do Schindler's List and Spielberg was going to do Cape Fear and they swapped, but with the BS in Hollywood, who knows if that is true. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) However, I think CF has some unusual features for a Scorsese film in that the main character actually changes. In other MS films, it seems to me the main character does not change, the characters around him do, usually for the worse. In CF, the daughter is the main character and she is somewhat of an airhead and the parents have under the surface problems-the mother even seems to resent her daughter--but towards the end when they are in the boathouse there is a brief moment where they seem to have achieved a kind of normalcy. It seems to me the experience with Cady exorcises some of their problems. And it ends the problems for the housekeeper, dog, and Joe Don Baker. There's one shot in the movie that bugs me. An editing choice. When Cady is pointing the gun at Bowden and says "I can ask leading questions your honor, he is a hostile witness," the camera view is from the ceiling, looking down on DeNiro. I think it would have worked better without that shot because it appears to be validating DeNiro's pov--as if God is looking at him, and if it remained with the shot of Nolte in the foreground, would have made Cady more intimidating. Just a minor quibble. The attack on Bowden's co-worker is very hard to watch. At times in the film DeNiro is kind of comical (like that God talking shot) but other times he is effectively menacing.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 4, 2018 0:18:46 GMT
Really? It seems like the most Burton-esque thing I know: the black and white, the outsider who still makes the story his own, the gallery of friends considered “freaks,” the close-ups… Also, from what I know, he considered it a very personal film. Oh yeah but I mean it doesnt have that signature style with the goofy props or maliciousness. Like the Penguin or the Headless Horseman. It's very mundane and constrained compared to his other work. I wouldnt have guessed he directed it other than the credit sequence. youtu.be/4ZbLFXqhbQMFor Burton, I think I'd lean more toward Planet of the Apes. Felt like an average action movie anyone could have done. Didn't even have any of his muses, except for Helena Bonham Carter, who wasn't a muse yet. With Ed Wood, you have the kooky protagonist (Pee Wee, half of Depp's other characters) as well as the subjects of Wood's films, which are definitely Burton-esque, if not his life - or so you'd think. Burton used his own relationship with the late Vincent Pryce as reference for the Wood/Legosi relationship, so it's probably one of his MOST personal films.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 4, 2018 0:49:13 GMT
I agree on POTA--that would qualify the most although Ed Wood still lacks his typical style elements so I rate it an odd man out in his resume. When it came out he had been associated with that Nightmare Before Christmas design style which is totally absent from the film (except for the chihuahuas--maybe Vampyra is the corpse bride surrogate but she is a historical figure...). Ed Wood is not an automaton or monster either--he is an outcast but not nearly in the way his other film characters are. Personal yes, but greatly watered down in style. It has a workman-like approach, quite different from his animation-influenced films which I would consider his true style. Even Batman has that bulgy-eyed cartoony parade float. He's been doing that bulgy eyed thing since Vincent.
|
|