love

Author Topic: Filmmaker Accessibility Levels  (Read 2753 times)

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Filmmaker Accessibility Levels
« on: July 06, 2013, 12:04:57 PM »
There's a Chart floating around the net ranking filmmaker accessibility. It has Michael Bay at the top and Gérard Courant just below Stan Brakhage at the bottom. It's missing a lot of filmmakers, but this was interesting enough for me to post it for comment.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Filmmaker Accessibility Levels
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2013, 12:09:17 PM »

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: Filmmaker Accessibility Levels
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2013, 12:11:01 PM »
Oh, English dominated thinking. Kurosawa is way more accessible than say Cronenberg or Kubrick in terms of what the movies are about and how they are constructed.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Filmmaker Accessibility Levels
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2013, 12:28:00 PM »
Agreed, but in terms of paying attention-ness subtitles will always be a barrier to entry for some people which necessarily lowers the accessibility level.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Filmmaker Accessibility Levels
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2013, 12:40:22 PM »
Weird selection.  Tarsem Singh rates a mention, but Antonioni doesn't?

I don't think Kirsanoff is all that difficult either.  I'd definitely put him above Barney, at least.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Filmmaker Accessibility Levels
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2013, 02:31:10 PM »
I don't know Kirsanoff and never heard of Courant. Any idea what makes him least accessible?

I also think the placements and inclusions/exclusions are off quite a bit, but I like the idea of not being afraid to say some filmmakers are more accessible than others.

Kurosawa/Cronenberg are a very interesting comparison, because you have to break them down by individual films. They've both made some commercial, mainstream audience pictures as well as bolder artistic statements that are tough to grasp. With stuff like Crash and The Fly, Cronenberg covers both extreme ends, while most of Kurosawa is around the level of History of Violence.

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: Filmmaker Accessibility Levels
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2013, 03:12:40 PM »
Kurosawa certainly has some interesting stuff going on in his films, but I can get my dad to watch a Kurosawa film. I don't think I could ever get him to watch a Cronenberg film.

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Filmmaker Accessibility Levels
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2013, 03:43:42 PM »
Not even Eastern Promises?

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: Filmmaker Accessibility Levels
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2013, 03:47:46 PM »
Oh yea, he could probably watch that. Always forget that's Cronenberg.  :P

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Filmmaker Accessibility Levels
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2013, 04:21:02 PM »
Duplass Brothers are less accessible than the Wachowski brothers? Not in a million years.

Their films could not be about more ordinary people, with ordinary lives, doing ordinary things. If there's a barrier to accessing their films it's certainly not the subject matter or the style. I would put them right at the top of the list.

Operating in the sci-fi genre alone puts the Wachowski's in less accessible territory. Pile on the philosophical (or pseudo-philosophical, if you're a critic) ideas they explore, and the law-breaking physics of films like The Matrix and Speed Racer, and you're in a place many people have no interest in going.

Someone just wants to take a dig at Matrix fans for thinking they're deep when they're not. Whoop dee doo.

« Last Edit: July 06, 2013, 04:26:35 PM by smirnoff »

 

love