Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
If anyone says Shane Meadows, I will shoot them.
He doesn't make films, he makes documentaries with actors. Good ones, but it doesn't have that magic. His cinematography is poor, and he can't get beauty out of horror, like others can.
Minghella took 5 years to make Cold Mountain. Granted, it's a little patchy, but in terms of how it's filmed and set, it's faultless. Absolutely stunning.
Directors these days don't understand 'cinema'.
It was good, but it didn't do it for me.
I just think that modern day directors are by and large afraid of cinema as an art, cause it makes them think of blockbusters. So they dull down their films and make them deliberately un film like, so as to avoid that. Minghella embraces film as a medium, whereas Meadows just uses film to tell a story. Big difference.
I think Shane's films just have a natural feel to them, which makes it really easy to get absorbed in them. I don't think there's anything un film like about them and they're far from dull.
The thing he does best in my opinion is the relationships between his characters.
But as much as I hate hearing all about Meadows being so amazing, I have enjoyed his films. I just think he's very overrated. And I don't think he's a terribly good film maker. He knows a good story, and he knows human beings and charcters, certainly.
A tad contrived!
i've never seen Cold Mountain and I don't go in for all that "greatest" stuff when it comes to films anyway. I'm sure Anthony Minghella is lovely.
the minute i read that headline I immedietely thought of Shane Meadows. Minghella ain't bad either though.
is a British passport hodler now isn't he? and Fear and Loathing and Tideland are within last 10 years, also, the intriguing mess that was Brothers Grimm
but it's not Minghella.
I'd go for Boyle and Meadows over Minghella though.
My opinions on Meadows are listed above.
Sci fi, drug drama, zombie horror, comedy- all made pretty successfully. He's willing to take risks. He's basically Kubrick-lite, but that's a compliment not a dismissal.
I think Meadows is great because his films are resolutely British, and admirably personal. All the characters in his films and how the scenes play out seem authentic and human, with a sense of uncertainty and menace underlying it. He can go from humour to terror in a split second, sometimes mixing the two sensations at the same time.
The thing is, I don't think the risks he takes pay off.
director of British films or director who happens to be British?
not the character from Emmerdale
i think it was Heartbeat
the other night
Yeah, I think that film is amazingly shot.
The English Patient is incredible though.
Cold Mountain but it's nowhere near as good as any of Shane Meadows films I've seen or Trainspotting/28 Days Later.
I'm not arguing that Meadows or Boyle ARE the greatest British director of the decade (I'd never make such a ludicrous statement) but their films are certainly better than that.
Although, Boyle is a very good challenge. I'll have to think about him.
this is england
which was very disappointing
was brilliant. But I think I prefer A Room For Romeo Brass.
was FUCKING HORRIBLE.
Minghella was good, but was showing worrying signs of turning into a worthy but dull 'safe pair of hands' as far as epic features are concerned.
And Breaking and Entering WAS fucking horrible.
1998 The Hi-Lo Country
2000 High Fidelity
2002 Dirty Pretty Things
2005 Mrs Henderson Presents
2006 The Queen
1) Jude Law is an Architect (cunty)
2) His office is in King's Cross (cunty)
3) His office is full of mac laptops (cunty)
4) He is burgled. NOT by a scally or n'er do well....NO. This is fucking ISLINGTONLAND! Subsequently he is burgled by A FREERUNNING REFUGEE WITH A HEART OF GOLD. (cunty)
5)His wife is a bit mad (in a deeply nonspecific way) (cunty)
6) Their kid has some sort of rare autism that leaves Robin Wright with a haunted look in her eyes. (cunty)
The one redeeming feature of the film is that Jude Law ends up FUCKING THE KID'S MUM, which is what I'd do if I got burgled.
and nearly made me forget the 2 hours I spent watching that pile of turd
both have made great films the last decade
Topsy Turvy was pretty good though.
by mike leigh its rly good, looking at imdb i guess idk so much about the rest of his stuff
also, the wind that shakes the barley/my name is joe/ae fond kiss for ken loach, he's more into socio-political stuff and his films arent exactly perfect but theyre usually quite affecting and interesting
also, that dude who made those funny horror films like the descent is quite good and imaginative isnt he? idk his name though
that was really good
If patronising northeners was a sport he'd be the god damn champion.
It's not gritty, it's just fucking dull.
not many of his films are actually set in the north. they're mostly set in london. where he's from.
i'm struggling to think of any of his films set in the north.
all or nothing
life is sweet
secrets and lies
I'm not even sure it's a Mike Leigh film i was thinking of y'know. maybe it's just me making some subconsious link: working class = northern. Southerners aren't working class! They all wear monacles and have man servants!
I think the point is I don't like Mike Leigh and have a terrible memory.
He's from Lancashire.
I had a particular film in mind with the patronising northeners comment, but i'll be damned if I can remember which one. Either way I found his 'kitchen sink' aesthetic deeply irritating.
because i recognise a hell of a lot of people i know in the scenarios in his films.
I definitely prefer Shane Meadows.
There's not really too many stand-out candidates is there?
Michael Winterbottom is disqualified due to the atrocity that was 9 Songs.
"The Talented Mr Ripley was so boring, even my chair fell asleep" Amen.
As for the best brit-director of the past decade? no idea. Winterbottom's good but inconsistent, so it has to be - Shane Meadows! ;D
I mean I don't think that many people can auto-fellate anyway and of those how many love his films?
about how much they wanna blow Anthony Minghella even though he's dead.
just in case...
I liked the films...but he is NOT the best british director of the last decade.
I like him. He's like a mainstream Nicholas Roeg.
He maybe hasn't directed the best British films of the last decade but I'd say he's done a better job of directing the films he's directed than most people named in this thread.
I think you're possibly deliberately confusing the definition of a Director.
I'm pretty clear on what a director's role is (although I think there is a general confusion in public perception of what a director does and doesn't do.)
that they are the person with the overarching view of the film.
Essentially they control all aspects of the film from the acting to the editing.
This would include perhaps in some cases revising the script etc.
Ultimately it's the Producer who was overarching responsiblity for all aspects of the film although obviously in practical terms other people tend to take responsibility for stuff too. On some films a star actor would have an astonishingly large say in what goes on and theoretically a big-name writer might do so too (especially if it's an adaptation).
Obviously many directors are in control of all the creative stuff, as you say, but it's in no way implied that it is their job (and it can in no way be assumed they were in charge of casting or even had any say over the final cut). Some directors pretty much shoot the script that's given to them - they obviously direct the actors band choose shots but do little more than that.
Obviously most of the ones we're discussing here would be in charge of the overall creative aspects but I genuinely think, aside from visuals, I prefer Wright's direction of actors too.
This said, it should be stressed this is probably because I don't to like British films either visually or stylistically.
on the individual concerned.
But by and large is that not the job/role of a director?
A lot of people tend to assume the "auteur" theory to be correct, and films are sometimes made this way, but films are a lot more of a collaborative process than you'd believe. And on many films producers are far more powerful and influential figures than the director.
I KNOW Producers can and often do override the directors wishes.
Tony Kaye and American History X for example.
in which case the answer is exactly what I said. What you're saying is the role of the director CAN be the role of director but I wouldn't say it is necessarily they're job (or even usually)
He's got way more visual flair than pretty much everyone bar Minghella on this thread and the way he conveys story and emotion through his choices of where to cut scenes are absolutely brilliant.
Even though the last film (forgot what it's called already) wasn't as well recieved as Shaun of the Dead the directing was brilliant, even if the script could have maybe used a polish.
Even if you prefer Meadows or Leigh's films in terms of the scripts or stories I honestly don't think you can claim there as good at actual "directing" as Wright is.
Meadows isn't a director.
i'd say his films work better on the small screen than they do in a cinema, which i'd say applies to the vast majority of movies this country churns out.
was as much about directing the cast and telling a story as choosing shots etc.?
cuts and such are down to the editor, idk rly know what this edgar wright thing is either
And this is the stuff I mean. The way Wright tells a story is phenomenal but specifically the way he uses editing to do it.
I just don't think Meadows has any special way with film, as said above. His films are shot like documentaries, as I said. That doesn't show a tremendous amount of originality or creativity.
Film isn't just about a story or characters, it's about showing things in a certain way. There have been some fairly average films which have been amazingly shot- Road To Perdition for example, and there have been some average films which have had an amazing story and cast- This Is England.
I don't think that disqualifies it. I think it's a mistake to think that it is more inspired/original to make something with obvious visual flair.
I don't doubt that Meadows is capable, and as said above, I think he has a wonderful way with story, but he just seems to sideline the fact he is making a piece of visual art.
it's a visual means of telling a story. It need not be about impressive visuals at all so long as the story is told well.
I simply don't think most British directors choose the best possible visual means of telling stories.
I mean it does partially come down to me not being a fan of Meadows' style of film-making but then I'm not a fan of his style film-making 'cos I don't think it's the best visual means of telling a story.
if he successfully tells a story then that his his aim achieved and it will be largely him who composed the shots which achieve that and draws the performances or our perceptions thereof out of the characters.
It completely comes down to you not liking films without obvious visual flair as opposed to any justifiable "objective" criticism of his directorial style.
doesn't mean someone else couldn't tell the story better.
No-one has objective criticisms. Don't eb silly.
You're saying he is a technically bad director as opposed to simply saying you don't like his style of film-making.
Yes, it's a stylistic choice and not concrete fact but it's still my opinion.
And ultimately this is a discussion of subjective opinions and there are no "right" answers.
it's just you or maybe Phil were coming across a bit dogmatic by suggesting that films ARE or HAVE TO BE done in a visually exciting way to fulfill their purpose as if that is a factual statement, as opposed to saying that you prefer films done in that way but that other stylistic choices are equally valid.
but I do think that British films tend to neglect/not consider the visual side rather than overtly choose to shoot in that style...
He's more visual than many Brit directors.
I've said multiple times that all comes down to the style of film-making that suits the script but I still think, whilst Meadows' films tend to be well-written and decently directed, he's not a brilliant director.
I'm not saying he's a bad director by any means but I certainly wouldn't consider him the best British director of the last however-many years.
here's an example with mike leigh, in vera drake there's a dinner scene where someone gets arrested, whilst shooting the scene leigh didnt tell anyone involved in the scene there was going to be an arrest taking place and just had the police walk in in the middle of a scene.
the resultant scene is incredibly powerful in a way you might notve been able to get otherwise.
i grant this happening isnt immediately obvious from the action of the film, but its inspired 'direction'...
There tends to be a lot of collaboration between directors and editors and most directors would be very clear to editors on what they want.
in a lot of more mainstream films the editing is not down to the director but the editor and the will of the backers hence why you get a 'directors cut' of things
you do get collaboration, but cuts and things arent especially something that you could really attribute to a director without qualification unless its obviously someone who does it all themselves, im not sure in this case it rly is
Simply due to the fact that his films/TV shows are clearly cut in a very different style to any other director I can think of and, given editors will work with different directors, Wright's opinion has to account for that difference.
And the editor deserves a hell of a lot of credit but the point is not all Chris Dickens' work looks like that so Wright must be either
a) having a big say
b) giving Dickens free reign to edit at his best
either of which would be a sign of fine direction.
He has a very distinctive style but one that looks incredibly dated and sits best on TV.
Most British film direction has a lack of flair for visuals and most British films look pretty much like TV programmes on bigger screens rather than visually astonishing films in the way you might get from elsewhere.
At least Wright has a visual style and that alone puts him ahead of 95% of all other British directors.
They can be good.
But too much style over substance is some cases.
I liked Shaun of the Dead a lot though
but a lot of it was shit. Overlong, massively signposted over-explained jokes, cliched and dull characters. He managed to get Kevin Eldon to be rubbish which was impressive. I'd be surprised if his next film doesn't continue the downwards trajectory especially now he has been hangin' in Hollywood.
Not everything is about Simpon Pegg and Edgar Wright!
I like them. I watch their films.
I actually know people who know them....
that's what cinema is about! It's not about remaking your own life, or converting a book into a film. I think the visuals of a film are the substance, more than anything. Just as much as the characters and the script are. And modern British film directors criminally neglect their visuals.
Films don't HAVE to be visually stunning.
12 Angry Men. One of the GREATEST films of all time.
Hardly visually stunning.
That's not what the term means at all. Chinatown is visually stunning. So is Elephant, so is Seven Samurai
is a definition of the term 'Visually stunning'
So don't patronise me Phil.
epic and sweeping et al.
Firstly you need to consider that these were shot in times where there was less money, worse quality cameras, less ability to do visuals well etc. and more films did involve people in rooms talking.
Casablanca's a brilliantly shot film in places with a lot more visual awareness than most British directors whereas 12 Angry Men is, although something of an anomaly, still one guided by a visual decision (partly motiviated by the script of course) of shooting the whole thing in one room. And ultimately with 12 Angry Men you're dealing with such a brilliant script that the correct visual decision is to let nothing detract from the brilliance of the script. Few films are at that level.
Plus the brilliance of 12 Angry Men doesn't change the fact that, from a writing view, a one-scene film would in most cases not work (even if this one does) and doesn't change the fact that there are few directors that could carry off a one-scene film or indeed scripts good enough to sustain that.
I'd say both could be argued to be visually very well-directed films.
films are intrinsically visual. This does not mean that they have to be ostentatious or that you have to be continually reminded that you are watching a film, they can just portray people doing stuff and if the director draws you in to that world then they are doing their job.
You like visual flair, but you can't equate that with what films "should" be.
ultimately characters and script are both things where ultimately the director can only take at most part of the credit*
*unless the director wrote the script too obviously.
Best british director? Hilarious.
It's funny seeing what people think makes a good director. To me, Wright is a director who overcompensates his films lack of depth with over flashy editing. He's our version of Tarantino and Rodriguez- definitely not a compliment this time.
I don't think Wright's work (or specificially Pegg's scripts) lack depth.
I don't think that particularly matters to their films but they are disposable nonsense.
but I think Spaced especially, and Shaun of the Dead to an extent, actually worked on an emotional level.
I'd argue no sitcom has better captured the feeling of being in your twenties and still by no means grown up or sure what you're doing with your life than Spaced. I'd also argue that the romantic angle of Shaun of the Dead actually works better and feels more emtionally real than the majority of romantic comedies.
although we can't really include Spaced in this, but they contain a miniscule fraction of the emotional depth of most Shane Meadows films.
although - and this is a side rant as I wouldn't necesarily apply it to Shane Meadows' films - I do get frustrated at how people confuse grittiness with depth (and indeed lack of grittiness with lack of depth).
For example I'd argue Sweet Sixteen, which is mentioned elsewhere on this thread, is shot in a gritty way but doesn't have much emotional depth or emotional realsim (and probably not as much as Shaun of the Dead). People tended to say it did as it was shot in a gritty style about a grim subject but I really don't think it did.
As I say I'm not applying that to Meadows though so it's a bit of a side-rant.
No matter how big or small. The trouble with many brit-filmakers, is that they either come from TV or worse, the stage. Thats why so many of our movies have static camerawork and are structurally stilted. A lot of our directors may be very good at directing actors, but the technical aspects like composition, lighting, editing etc generally tend to take a seat at the back of the bus.
2 buses turned up at once :D
I don't get why you like Meadows so much though. As I've said, I'm debating that his films aren't good, but don't you think they're lacking that edge?
I enjoyed TIE and Dead Mans Shoes, but as ive already said, they work better on the small screen. I'd like to see him tackle a big Hollywood film...is he up to it?
why should it be?
it's broadcast on a massive screen in a darkened room and there's a lot of potential in there.
Not all good films HAVE to be visually brilliant and not all visually brilliant films are good but if you're making a film and not using the visual possibilities then you're arguably not using the full potential of the medium.
Obviously to a large extent it comes down to what style of film suits the script, and not all scripts need stunning visuals (Fullerov's right about 12 Angry Men and I'd argue that would be weakened by too much precedence being given to the visual over the script) but I do think most Briitsh directors don't use the visual to tell a story as well as they could.
in my opinion.
There are a multitude of things that could make a film great but not every one of them needs to be satisfied, it depends on the film, what is necessary for the film to fulfill whatever it's trying to fulfill, suitable visuals not stunning visuals.
I think when you're looking at what film needs to be that's pretty negative and constricting.
You seem to act as though your arguing with me but also stating exactly what I'm saying.
i'm just saying bundoz is wrong.
He spent so much of his time homaging and parodying other directors he loved that I feel like his films are all about putting in a Spielberg Shot here or a Peter Jackson there...
He's like Brian De Palma in that respect: the results are great but you just feel like you've seen them all before.
but i do agree that at least he has proper, visual, cinematic flair, unlike a lot of the directors mentioned on this thread.
apart from the cheesy ending.
How many films is enough to judge on by the way? I'm thinking at least 3 which means you end up with a pretty short list of candidates.
is based far more on what I think he has the potential to do than what he has done.
but in a better-funded, more commercially savvy and less amusing film?
I will quite literally eat my hat (I don't have one) if his next film shows an up turn after the drop-off from Shaun to Hot Fuzz.
I think people are too quick to assume that as soon as someone's made a bad film (or album even) they've lost it creatively but sometimes people just make mistakes or invididual projects don't work out.
but the similarity of everything he has done hints that he may be a one-trick pony but yeah it's a bit stupid of me to assume.
I'd never write off like someone like Michael Winterbottom or Danny Boyle because they have gone for more variety with the things they do.
Batman Begins is flawed but Memento is immense and The Dark Knight looks like being one of true greats among fims...
I'd forgotten he'd done Batman Begins as well as Memento.
I probably would put him above Wright (but keep Wright above Meadows etc.)
I taped it when it came on TV. To be honest I wasn't very impressed. It definitely had elements of his later films, such as the fractured narrative and plot twists and turns, but it was more like a student short film expanded to 70 minutes rather than a good low budget debut. The acting was pretty shoddy and it struggled to overcome it's lack of finance.
In regards to Nolan, he is a good director and very promising, but my worry about him is a lack of emotional depth in his films. He seems more like a concept director to me rather than someone who is going to explore human relationships.
You do mean Nolan's first film dont you? I taped off BBC2 a few months back but still havent watched it. Wanna rent it off me?
Land and Freedom
The Wind That Shakes The Barley
Bread & Roses
My name is Joe
Spot a duff among that lot.
to take him to his local club on nights out in greenock during his 15 minutes of fame, he may still do
i thought that film was quite good, people from greenock tell me its 'well unrealistic', go figure, huh
'Red Road' too
Apparently his dream job is to be an accountant though :/
that was a good film, huh?
I was in the cinema completely alone when I saw it. Eeeeeeeerie.
of a throbing ginger scottish erection.......you should have been in my cinema. its had loads of old people who, upon encountering said cock, started tutting and going 'oh...oh no....thats too much'. bless em.
It's not a "duff" but it's nowt special in my view.
of Nil By Mouth
meadows is getting knocked for his visual style. his style of storytelling doesnt warrent grand statements regarding edits, compostition etc etc etc. his style can be traced back to the new wave, lindsey anderson et al, who strove for what some of them called 'poetic realism', in other words, trying to inject small and subltle amounts of visual lricism into real situations. i think meadowsn does this completely. dead mans shoes is brilliantly shot, uses the nottinghjam landscape beautifully. and what about that drug scene. a little in debt to easy rider maybe but still visually arresting. 24/7 again is clearly in the style of the new wave with the monochrome print which works brilliantly. this is england perfectly captured the grainy, washed out feel of 80's england, and has some amazing shots. romeo brass and midlands, perhaps not so much, but to write him off completely as having no style or being suited to the small screen is ridiculous.
Will (Jude Law), is a successful landscape architect. His young, vibrant company, which he runs with business partner, Sandy (Martin Freeman), has recently relocated to King's Cross, the centre of the most ambitious urban regeneration site in Europe. Their state-of-the-art office immediately attracts the attention of a local group of thieves. After one of the break-ins, Will follows 15-year-old free-runner Miro (Rafi Gavron) back to the apartment he shares with his mother, Amira (Juliette Binoche) - a refugee from Bosnia. With his relationship to Liv (Robin Wright Penn) - his beautiful Swedish partner - already in crisis, Will embarks on a passionate journey into both the wilder side of himself and the city in which he lives.
one of the worst films i've ever seen.
cold mountain is enjoyable but thats because it was an excellent book and its got a fairly good cast.
minghella was a workhorse rather than a great artist.
please develop a clue about cinema and a consciousness of aesthetics before telling everyone what is and what isn't cinema.
your arguments about Anthony Minghella being a cinematic master (he wasn't) and Shane Meadows not being a director (he is) just don't hold up. saying he's not a director is like saying Times New Viking aren't musicians because they don't spend years going over the production of every note in every one of their songs, and that actually, Axl Rose is the greatest musician of all time.
Anthony Minghella belongs to a particular (very pompous) tradition of film-making in which he is arguably no more the author of the piece than the key grip is. his films were made by committee. his shots were chosen by cinematographers. the mood of his films was determined by set designers. he was basically a manager. a master of cinema is a director that shows imagination, innovation, depth, powerful emotion and relevance. Think Griffith, Eisenstein, Keaton, Chaplin, Capra, Hitchcock, Wilder, Godard, Herzog, Coppola, Lynch, to which list, to keep this vaguely on topic, I'd add Shane Meadows, Lynne Ramsay (howcome no-one mentioned her?), Mike Leigh... these are film-makers with something personal to say, something to bring to the table. all that Minghella brought to anything was workmanship. he may have been a good craftsman, but great director he was not.
and it spurred an interesting debate, so go fuck yourself you pompous prick.
my bed squeaks too much :(
i owe you an apology. i misread one of the comments up there ^ (about brit directors coming from tv, not making great cinema etc., which is something i'm pretty passionate about) to be yours, when it wasn't at all. sorry man.
There is no body like Mike.
The Prestige is the single most addictive film I've ever watched. It's strange, because it seems the type of film that should get tiring with repetitive viewing, but I just love it more and more.
^ obviously completely uncultured
I forget he directed the Prestige.
MICHAEL FUCKING POWELL
Nolan, but not