[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

good points. I mean, Ferrara has some garbage, but I think he had quite a string of effective films. He's even pretty honest about how shitty a lot of his films are. 'R X-Mas is one of the worst films ever, and I think he even knows it haha.

This might sound odd but something I respect about Ferrara is that he's not afraid to make a bad film. He just wants to keep working and will pretty much take what he can get. (He reminds me a lot of De Palma in that sense.) He's the opposite of someone like Cronrnberg, who seems evermore precious about what he does, his reputation, etc. I think you're right about Ferrara knowing a lot of what he does isn't that great but I think he simply sees that as coming with the territory, so to speak.

And I agree, I think directors should collaborate more, though I actually think "Directors" are a bit overrated, in a mainstream sense, because directing IS a big collaboration (talking Hollywood and so on here, not indie dudes who do everything themselves) and so in the end all the credit (and the blame) going towards them is usually ridiculous... I mean, you have a director, a writer, a dp, a cinematographer, a "continuity editor", actors/editors/producers/etc/etc/etc/etc/etc/test audiences and so on. In a way -- depending on the situation/director -- there already is a sense of collaboration... that also equals a loss of control. As you already know. But I figured it was worth stating.

I agree. There's an assumption that a lot of big directors leave a signature in their work that immediately identifies it as theirs. But someone like Ridley Scott can make Alien, Thelma and Louise and Gladiator, all very good bu it'st hard to see what connects them enough to make them 'Ridley Scott' films. But then you can watch any film by Hitchcock or John Waters or Tarantino or David Lynch and immediately recognise the director behind it. So while I do agree I think it has to be taken on a director by director basis. Certainly I'd say Scorsese, Ferrara and Kubrick leave pretty identifiable signatures in their films.

...because Ferrara started sucking when he became -- for lack of a better word -- more mainstream. Same for Scorsese... I dunno. It's all politics.

Scorsese crapped out cos he got old. My favourites of his are Mean Streets and Taxi Driver (clearly not that mainstream) but I wouldn't put either Goodfellas or Casino too far behind them (which clearly are).

I think we almost expect too much from directors now. Scorsese was really at the top of his game for a good 20 years, which if you think about it is about as long (albeit in a different era) as Hitchcock's most creative period - whose reputation is hardly in question. I suppose the thing is to judge them on the films they made during their peaks. Scorsese's reputation won't hinge on The Departed, any more than Hitchcock's has on The Trouble With Harry. Which I think is perfectly right.

Ferrara's version of INVASION is solid.

'Solid' is the perfect description.