Filmmakers : Screw indie/artsy director threads, let's talk Scott

[doctor7]

Ridley Scott.

Admittedly this title probably doesn't work perfectly because Ridley Scott is one hell of an artist, he just happens to be an artist that makes Hollywood Blockbusters that make millions of dollars and win Oscars.

My first Ridley Scott experience was 9 years ago when I tried to sneak in to see Gladiator because I wasn't 18, got caught, and had to watch Battlefield Earth instead. The next day, after I got over my dutch-angle vertigo, I made my dad take me. At the time I was only 16 and wasn't "into" film for anything more than entertainment. I can still remember when I fell in love with him. "On my signal, unleash hell." Minutes later you see what hell is. Gladiator introduced me to my now favourite genre: the sword and the sandal. I fully admit I got caught up in the "Gladiator effect" and never, ever got out.

I really got into film as an art years later and I went back to rewatch some of the films I had enjoyed earlier with the eye of a film enthusiast and not only did I still enjoy most of his films that I watched earlier, save G.I. Jane, but I enjoyed them even more. I think the best way I can describe Scott is that his movies simply "look right." There's no other way for me to put it. His action scenes frequently cut rapidly between angles but you can still fully follow what's going on without much difficulty, compared with Paul Greengrass, who I also enjoy but can't deny you do have to put in effort to follow what the hell is going on.

As an example I give you the scene from what is arguably Scott's masterpiece Blade Runner. Tyrell's office:


If you've seen the film you know that the light on the back wall moves and dances. However it's not motivated light and Scott got into a disagreement with his crew over it, where he said "I need this effect on the wall of wavy light." He was told there's no reason for the light to be there so why put the light there? When you watch the scene, it simply feels right.

A few years ago I rewatched Black Hawk Down at the behest of a friend of mine who loves the realistic war films. On my first viewing I wasn't impressed but with the subsequent viewing suggested by my friend I began to warm to the film. Since it has become on of my favourite movies and I wrote a paper on it for my film class discussing the formalist techniques used in the film to give the viewer a sense of the reality the soldiers go through on the battlefield.

I'll be honest he hasn't been without his duds. A Good Year was good to me, and apparently only me. Legend looks great but feels like a cinematic version of Calvinball as rules are seemingly made up on the spot, and there's way too many close-ups (and yeah I'm talking about the Director's Cut of it). Matchstick Men could've been a lot better without Nicholas Cage, G.I. Jane is nowhere near as good as I remember it and Black Hawk Down is simply way better. Ridley's return to horror in Hannibal is his worst film en devour yet, in my opinion. But, at almost 71, he's still making fantastic films like the Director's Cut Kingdom of Heaven, American Gangster and Body of Lies.

To date I have seen 13 of his films, with 5 more to go according to Criticker. Here they are, listed according to my preference:
Kingdom of Heaven 96
Alien 95
Blade Runner 95
Black Hawk Down 94
Gladiator 90
American Gangster 89
The Duellists 85
Body of Lies 80
Legend 74
A Good Year 74
Matchstick Men 64
Legend 64
G.I. Jane 60
Hannibal 57

I know I can't be the only one out there who considers him on of the best Hollywood filmmakers out there.

[Rufflesack]

This reminds me that I read in some Norwegian paper today that Ridley Scott is making a movie based on the A-Team to be released in 2010 if I recall.. Don't know exactly how accurate it was but I thought it was pretty funny.

As for the director I don't really feel like I know his style..
My rankings:
Alien - 92
Blade Runner - 87
Matchstick Men - 79
1492: Conquest of Paradise - 43
Thelma & Louise - 41

None of the films I've seen of him are what I call "bad" (if something's bad it'll usually be below 30 in my rankings), but I can't say that I've seen very many of his films. I have bought the DVD of Gladiator so I guess I'll be seeing that pretty soon.

[Hells_Zargon]

Ridley Scott has always been one of my favourite directors as well, ever since my first viewing of Alien. The direction is excellent and almost Hitchcockian in the way it builds tension.

Scott's success with these movies seems to be based on the technique of showing exactly enough to capture the scene, but also without revealing too much. Alien raises suspense as the viewer begins to speculate over the brief glimpses of the creature creeping around the perfect camoflauge of a encolsed metallic environment, and although we do see some aspects of the Alien, we never really see it's full form until the end. Similarly in that particuar scene from Blade Runner, your vision is immediately drawn firstly to the centre of the shot where there are a few carefully placed items and then the shimmering light upon the back wall. To put it in other words, it's minimalistic detail. While the details in each scene are there, they never detract or distract from the purpose of a scene. It's even evident in the classic British TV Hovis bread advert he directed before going into film. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CFLBvLxLJMI)

I do have to say that Blade Runner was somewhat of a letdown for me after the very high PSI this site gave me though. Although it's ideas are very broad in the spectrum of the ideas of the sci-fi world that it portrays, the film seems to narrow down too much and viewpoint of the plot eventually appears to be very much along a straight and forseen line. Visually however, it was great. Maybe I was expecting too much, I seemed to have developed the impression of a vast detailed portrayal of the future world being central to the film from the reviews I'd read. I still thought it was good though, I guess not everyone can love every hailed film.

Black Hawk Down is another memorable one, which I've only seen recently, but it's something that sticks in your mind. It's not really so much for the brutalistic portrayal of the native people, but more thanks to the gritty ultra-realistic cinematics and the carefully angled perspectives on the scenes. I viewed it in SD, but even there you notice the small sand grains whipped up from the road surface and the other small little details which seem to catch your attention. The main problem I had with the film was the portrayal of the Americans as heroes against the single tone barbaric savages was a little too heavily emphisised, making the film totally one sided. I'm not condoning the what happened I'm just saying that not everyone will have been on the streets, something which was almost entirely missed, apart from one short scene. The scenes that seem to have remained in my memory most clearly are the ones involving the two soldiers, one of them played most memorably by Ewen Bremner, left behind in the panic of withdrawal. I thought that whole sequence was an excellent little addition to the drama, even if it never really takes center stage. As you can probably tell I really enjoyed the film, but again it never quite lived up to the very top tiers for me.

Currently on Criticker, quite ashamedly, I've only ranked 4 of his films. I have seen more, but want to watch them through again before I give them a ranking. It's been quite a while since my last viewing for many. I've had American Gangster on HD-DVD for about 5/6 months as well, but haven't got around to watching it yet.

Of those ranked:
Alien (1979) - 95 (Director's Cut)
Gladiator (2000) - 89
Blade Runner (1982) - 68 (Director's Cut)
Black Hawk Down (2001) - 67

It's strange with Blade Runner and Black Hawk Down, I really did expect to like them more than I did. Looking at what most people seem to think maybe I'm a bloody idiot, I don't know! I think a second viewing of Blade Runner in particular is inevitable.

Those that need a re-viewing:
The Duellists (1977) - Saw ages ago, need to see again.
Thelma & Louise (1991) - Saw it ages ago, need to see again.
G.I. Jane (1997) - Saw it ages ago, need to see again.
A Good Year (2006) - Only seen a small section of this, looked pretty good.
Hannibal (2001) - Only seen a small section of this.
Kingdom of Heaven (2005) - Watched the first hour when it was on Film4 a while back. Tried to tape the rest at the time but the bloody VCR packed in on me. It was the Directors Cut as well, dang.
American Gangster (2007) - Got on HD-DVD, need to watch.

This reminds me that I read in some Norwegian paper today that Ridley Scott is making a movie based on the A-Team to be released in 2010 if I recall.. Don't know exactly how accurate it was but I thought it was pretty funny.

Last I heard was that Ridley and Tony Scott are producing, but not directing. I don't really hold much hopes for it to be honest.

[djross]

I'll offer a counter opinion. In my view, Ridley Scott is a poor director. Alien was a well-done genre movie, but other than that he is a very conventional and not very interesting Hollywood mainstream filmmaker. Some of his movies certainly look nice, and perhaps it would have been better if he had become a visual designer working on the movies of more talented directors.

[Pickpocket]

Not a huge fan of his. The characters in his movies never resonate with me. I'm surprised you ranked Kingdom of Heaven that high, maybe I'll check it out now.

[Hells_Zargon]

I'll agree that he's definately more talented at the visual over the spoken aspects, but I wouldn't say he's a poor director. Sort of like Del Toro really in that respect, although Del Toro is much more creative and slightly less polished.

[doctor7]

Alien (1979) - 95 (Director's Cut)

Really? I much prefer the theatrical cut to the "director's cut." In Ridley Scott's introduction he essentially says the same thing and states he only made the director's cut because the studio asked him to recut a new version for a re-release special edition.

Not a huge fan of his. The characters in his movies never resonate with me. I'm surprised you ranked Kingdom of Heaven that high, maybe I'll check it out now.

The Director's Cut of the film is almost as good as Lawrence of Arabia in my book.

As well in Black Hawk Down the entire film is not about American might, the entire film is about how terribly, terribly wrong things went and what soldiers had to go through after it. As well the entire movie is shown from the American soldier perspective without any real political statement either way other that the Somali dictator is bad. The soldiers even specifically give unheroic viewpoints. Some state they're there to "kick ass" and some are there to "make a difference." I don't think it's far fetched to conclude that some soldiers join and fight for both these reasons.

[AFlickering]

i LOVE blade runner (director's cut), it's one of those films where nothing ought to work and yet somehow everything's perfect.

[HorrorMaster]

I'll offer a counter opinion. In my view, Ridley Scott is a poor director. Alien was a well-done genre movie, but other than that he is a very conventional and not very interesting Hollywood mainstream filmmaker. Some of his movies certainly look nice, and perhaps it would have been better if he had become a visual designer working on the movies of more talented directors.

This is what I would have said, although I think "Alien" is rubbish.

[sebby]

Ridley Scott is all over the place for me. I love Alien and Blade Runner, but some of his other films (A Good Year, GI Jane, Kingdom of Heaven) were truly painful watches, while others (American Gangster, Matchstick Men, Gladiator) fall somewhere in between. He's not a director I get excited about when he releases something new (like the Coens or PTA, for example), but I usually end up seeing his movies at some point. He's probably a Tier-6 director for me.