comment #1

rocco says ...

Ah, so nice to see that Rex Reed is so secure being Rex Reed he finds it necessary to remind everyone they are in the presence of greatness.

comment #2

jeffmcm says ...

God, Rex Reed is awful. He's basically the middle-aged gay version of DZ.

I hope they outvoted Armond and decided to give Lumet the award.

comment #3

Eric Stanton says ...

I love these stories. They make me think the AMPAS members are insightful grown-ups by comparison.

comment #4

thatmovieguy says ...

Rex Reed "middle-aged"? He's got to be on the dark side of 70 by now. As Meryl Streep says in POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE when Shirley MacLaine insists she's considered middle-aged at 55: "How many 110-year-old women do you know?"

comment #5

jeffmcm says ...

He's 69.
I was being generous, I didn't say he was a klepto either.

comment #6

Sean says ...

From a great new interview between Armond White and Steven Boone, after Boone praises Lumet:

AW: Uh-oh. Cuz now you're talking about one of the most slovenly filmmakers in the history of the medium! Don't mention that man in the same paragraph as David Lean! We're not on the same page at all. Sidney Lumet has never known what he's doing. And let me put an end to that discussion by saying, this is the man who made The Wiz.

SB: (laughs)

AW: Now we can talk about something else. (laughs)

SB: But did you see Before The Devil Knows You're Dead?

AW: I saw that garbage.

SB: Yeah?

AW: Utter garbage. Looked like shit.

SB: Tell me why.

AW: Why? You can't see half of it, because there are no color values in it. It looks like garbage.

SB: So it needs color values.

AW: It needs light!

SB: I think you're about to walk out. (laughs)

AW: (laughs) No, no. I'm trying to come up with an analogy... It just... needed somebody who knew what they were doing. He hires professionals to shoot the actors and the dialogue, that's it. As a film maker, he doesn't know what he's doing. Never has.

SB: To me, it moves in a certain way, visually it moves--

AW: What are you talking about? It's a mess! It has no rhythm. All those flashbacks. A mess!

SB: I wasn't getting into the flashbacks--

AW: It's an attempt at some kind of Tarantino time-split--

SB: That, to me, was just an older filmmaker trying to be in vogue but he was way behind. What I'm saying is, in the individual scenes, there was the simple pleasure of watching them play out without being crowded by the usual jumble of elements attempting to underscore or sell a moment. A simple pleasure. At this point, films are about trying to sell you a moment at every turn ....

AW: Well, with Lumet, his only gift is that he can keep an actor in focus as he says his dialogue, simple as that. He doesn't know how to shoot the scene, does not know how to compose a shot-- never has. Not in any interesting way. But he certainly knows how to keep actors in focus as they say their dialogue. He's been plying that trade for 40 years. He's not a filmmaker. He's still directing live TV. Ever see his film of Long Day's Journey Into Night? Great film because it's a great play with a great cast. He kept his camera focused on those great actors saying that great dialogue. That's it.

SB: What I'm getting into is more scenes that... breathe.

AW: I don't agree that they breathe.

SB: Okay, we're sitting here talking. Most Hollywood films today, of all different genres, are hectic, and I think it's a factor of editors that have been trained on non-linear editing systems, so that I'm talking to you, it instantly cuts to me, you're talking to me, it instantly cuts to you. A frenetic back and forth, and there's no attempt to vary rhythms. Everything is either extremely hectic or fake verite camera jostling.

AW: Well, that comes from television.

SB: I don't disagree with your assessment that Lumet's work feels like live television from the '50s, but guess what? Live television from the '50s, to me, if not ideal, is more cinematic in rhythm than what we're seeing today.

AW: No it's not. And don't ever say that again. (laughs) Live television in the fifties is live television. It’s not cinema. Lumet cuts on dialogue, Steve! He cuts on dialogue! There's no breathing in a Sidney Lumet film because he doesn't use the rhythms which which people communicate. He cuts on commas and periods.

SB: What's happening in contemporary films, to me, is that you have exactly that, except in overdrive.

AW: Sometimes it’s appropriate, given the subject or the temperament of the filmmaker. Some people can do that. Not every film does that.

SB: To me, it is the status quo.

A; Well, you need a better example than Lumet. What about The Darjeeling Limited? In a world that has The Darjeeling Limited, Sidney Lumet should be imprisoned!

SB: (laughs) But if you throw him in jail, you gotta throw, like, virtually everybody making films in Hollywood. They enter first.

AW: Well, of course, most films are dismissable, too. But you don't need to go to Lumet, go to Darjeeling Limited. That's rhythm. Every shot belongs to Wes Anderson.

SB: Right.

AW: A Sidney Lumet movie could have been directed by anybody. No personality. That's an 83 year old man who was always a hack.

SB: I guess I'm saying that yesterday's hacks show up today's hacks.

AW: I don't agree with that. I'd much rather watch a film by Michael Bay than one by Sidney Lumet.

SB: I don't think of Michael Bay as a hack in the strict sense. Stupid, maybe, but--

AW: Then what are you talking about when you say generally Hollywood films? Cuz generally Hollywood films look like Before the Devil Knows You're Dead and The Sopranos. If you want to talk about what has changed things and ruined the culture, its not the current administration [Sean's note: This refers to earlier in the interview], its television.

SB: Of course.

AW: It's fucked things up. It especially fucked up the critical profession, because people can't tell the difference between television and movies anymore.

SB: We're absolutely on the same page there. But Michael Bay, what that guy has is-- there's something to him when it comes down to certain lyric interludes or whatever. He's invested in every shot in a similar sense that you say Wes Anderson is.

AW: Well, in that sense he's more of an artist than Ridley Scott. Ridley Scott's a hack as well. The television visual sense. That's why Blade Runner doesn't hold up.

SB: Oooh.

AW: Of course. It's television. It was impressive for a moment, like, uh, June of 1982 to July of 1983. Then everybody copied. There's nothing in Blade Runner now that's impressive. Nothing.

SB: (staring in disbelief)

AW: Easily imitated, cuz Ridley Scott's a hack!

SB: The cinematography, the production design.

AW: Art direction, not film direction.

SB: You mean all that shining spotlights through the slats, the rain--

AW: Yeah, its garbage now.

SB: Wow.

AW: He's a hack. He's a gifted hack, in the sense that he does have an eye for beautiful things-- no, not beautiful, pretty things. Trained in television. Michael Bay has surpassed him.

http://bigmediavandal.blogspot.com/2007/12/in-world-that-has-darjeeling-limited.html

comment #7

Walter Sobchak says ...

What do you mean a "gay" version of DZ?

The Pawnbroker
12 Angry Men
Fail-Safe
Serpico
Murder on the Orient Express
Dog Day Afternoon
Network
The Verdict
....yeah, I guess Lumet has always sucked

comment #8

atticusrex says ...

Gentlemen and Ladies of HE... Was that a joke or typo referring to Sidney Lumet that he isn't worth a LIfetime Achievement? I mean excuse my ignorance but I do not know who Armond White is or who he writes for (Yes I could look him up, but why bother). But for him to sit on a Critics Board especially NY's and call Lumet's work crap... well he needs to either turn in his credentials or actually watch some of Lumet's work.

Sure Lumet has some stinkers. But he has a galley of winners as well. Even John Ford and Alfred Hitchcock didn't hit a home-run with every feature.

Is this Mr. WHite a stuck-up elitist or what?

Sheesh.

comment #9

atticusrex says ...

Gentlemen and Ladies of HE... Was that a joke or typo referring to Sidney Lumet that he isn't worth a LIfetime Achievement? I mean excuse my ignorance but I do not know who Armond White is or who he writes for (Yes I could look him up, but why bother). But for him to sit on a Critics Board especially NY's and call Lumet's work crap... well he needs to either turn in his credentials or actually watch some of Lumet's work.

Sure Lumet has some stinkers. But he has a galley of winners as well. Even John Ford and Alfred Hitchcock didn't hit a home-run with every feature.

Is this Mr. WHite a stuck-up elitist or what?

Sheesh.

comment #10

corey3rd says ...

Armond White needs to shut his trap. Man needs to understand what Lumet has meant to the New York film community over the decades - more than anything White's masturbatory writings have accomplished. What has White written that compares with Lumet's "Making Movies"?

White is the hack.

I have met the guy and can testify that he's a major (and worthless) prick.

comment #11

hanimal says ...

armond white is the chair of NYFCC. thank you.

comment #12

atticusrex says ...

Sorry for the double post here. Something strange happened in computer-netland. Also as I wrote this someone posted the transcript above dealing with Mr. White. Simply WOW!

He even calls Sir Ridley Scott a Hack! And praises to some degree Michael Bay!!!!!!

Who is this man I ask!?!

I would love to know what Mr. White feels about John Ford, John Huston, Samuel Fuller or even Lumet's contemporary Norman Jewison.

comment #13

atticusrex says ...

Thank you Mr. Hanimal for letting me know who Mr. White is. So did no one else want the NYFCC Chair?

Or does Mr. White also think these other Directors are crap: John Frankenheimer, Sam Peckinpah, Robert Aldrich and even Michael Mann since they for the most part came out of TV?

comment #14

lazarus says ...

I can't stand Armond White, but I have to say, he has a bit of a point. Sidney Lumet is NOT an auteur. He made a handful of great films, no doubt, but none of them bear any kind of personal visual stamp. Now I'll give him credit for getting great work out of actors and putting together watchable films, but those that Walter posted are great mainly because of their casts and/or screenplays.

From a visual sense, yes, Bay is more of an artist than Lumet. His films suck, but he's got a great eye. I don't think he's better than Ridley Scott, but Scott is overrated to be sure.

comment #15

jeffmcm says ...

Then that means White is overvaluing visual pyrotechnics at the expense of storytelling or values.

comment #16

corey3rd says ...

I guess if Lumet would have his actors step up on dollies and be pulled during walking scenes, White would consider him a genius!

comment #17

PerfectTommy says ...

Lazarus, is a "personal visual stamp" the only mark of a great director or what makes someone an artist? Another skill of a director is to get good performances out of actors. Even so, he did does have "visual" skills. Take "12 Angry Men" which I watched recently. He not only gets 12 great performances, he manages the amazing keeping visual interest in one set. I think he did a better job than Hitch did with "Lifeboat". Yeah, Michael Bay would have done great things with the scripts of "Network" and "Dog Day Afternoon".

comment #18

BurmaShave says ...

As much as I didn't really love the film, I wish NYFC had gone for the hometown boy and given Best Director to Sidney Lumet, not just some Achievement Award. He's meant so much not just to the film community but to the city in general. Fuckers like Armond White have no business being part of decisions like this.

comment #19

hanimal says ...

"personal visual stamp" is the essential, if not only, mark of an auteur.

comment #20

jeffmcm says ...

No it isn't. By that logic Darren Bousman is more of an auteur than Howard Hawks.

comment #21

WKeane says ...

Just because he means something to the city, doesn't mean the man needs an award. BurmaShave, he didn't deserve Best Director, so it's a good thing he didn't get it. Why must everything be so political? In addition, Lumet's lack of a visual stamp is a problem, because film is a visual medium. All of the great directors use visuals to tell a story. Directing actors is very important, but it's only one part of the process.

comment #22

Sean says ...

White is worth taking seriously. I mean, right there in the excerpt, he lays out his argument against Lumet. You can buy it or not buy it, but he makes his case -- he's not talking nonsense.

comment #23

hanimal says ...

well, darren bousman has made too few films to decide if he is an auteur or not. and it's a more complicated situation since he is a genre filmmaker. my question is: do you call ed wood an auteur?

comment #24

lazarus says ...

Let me reiterate: I did not imply that Michael Bay is a better filmmaker than Lumet. But as WKeane points out above, film is foremost about the images. And the greatest artists of the medium are going to be the ones who deliver the more memorable ones.

Sidney Lumet is a great journeyman director, but he's not an auteur. Sorry. You'd have an easier time making a case for Hawks, but I'm still not sure about that one, and he's probably the director that gets debated over the most when it comes to classification.

comment #25

alynch says ...

Sidney Lumet does have a visual sense though. It isn't showy, but it's certainly there. Let's look at his first film 12 Angry Men. At the beginning of the film when most of the characters have a relaxed attitude, the camera is at close to ceiling level. As tensions in the room gradually increase throughout the film, the camera gradually lowers. By the film's climax, it's at table level and deep in the muck along with the film's characters.

That's a distinctive visual sense that's one hell of a lot more complicated than just pointing at the actors and keeping them in focus.

comment #26

jeffmcm says ...

When Bazin was originating what would become the auteur theory, Hawks was one of his primary examples.
And being an auteur doesn't have as much to do with 'visuals' per se as much as it has to do with giving a movie a personal stamp with a particular voice and set of thematic interests.
Lumet could be considered a weak auteur because he doesn't have a consistent visual stamp but he does have consistent thematic interests.

I'd call Ed Wood an auteur if for no other reason than because of his angora fetish which pops up in most of his movies. Doesn't make him a good director, though.

comment #27

mutinyco says ...

I'm not about to go digging through my records and type up some quotes. But Lumet pretty plainly stated at the NYFF that he hates the idea of having style and tries to remove anything that feels aesthetic. That's his preference.

Furthermore, in the video I posted 1:1 with him, he makes it very clear why he prefers digital to film, and this ties into his visual approach: he likes to shoot "reality."

About the closest he comes to aestheticizing is in Network, where he instructed Roizman to start the movie off totally naturalistic, then by the end it was to progress to the point of looking like a Ford commercial.

comment #28

corey3rd says ...

film isn't merely about visuals. it's about sucking the audience into a story. it's about characters you want to watch. It's not just pretty f'n pictures. Ask a non-film student about their favorite films and rarely will they say it's because of the visual sense of the director.

White is just doing his best to keep Lumet down with his hating ways. Sure the Wiz stunk, but do we really need a film promoting that freak who loves to sleep with little boys?

" In a world that has The Darjeeling Limited, Sidney Lumet should be imprisoned!"

Somebody should have sucker punched Armond at that point in the conversation. There's no changing his mind. He hates Lumet - probably because he secretly senses that Lumet is a racist.

White is completely off-base when he says "AW: It's fucked things up. It especially fucked up the critical profession, because people can't tell the difference between television and movies anymore."

Why should we? Was Larry the Cable Guy in Health Inspector superior to TV because it was a film?

The Wire is the best thing of the last decade - I put it up against any dramatic movie. And it was shot on film like a crappy Michael Bay film.

comment #29

hanimal says ...

who cares about your populist comment on what film should be.
"ask a non-film student about their favorite films and rarely will they say it's because of the visual sense of the director."
yuck.

comment #30

jeffmcm says ...

Yeah, how dare the art form actually have an audience.

comment #31

hanimal says ...

yeah. why can't they give out the nobel prize for literature to romance novel writer?

comment #32

jeffmcm says ...

Okay, let's start over again because this is getting pointless.
Obviously a filmmaker should have a visual sense, but at the same time empty formalism doesn't do anybody any good either. Just because Before the Devil Knows You're Dead kind of looks flat and cheap doesn't make it a bad film, in my estimation, because the writing and performances are good. I'm not going to put it on my top ten of the year but to call it 'trash' is meaningless hyperbole.

comment #33

transmogrifier says ...

Armond White is useless as a critic, because his whole shtick is to attack, not reason, to produce soundbites, not logic. He thinks good film criticism is merely the person in the room shouting the loudest.

Read any review of his, and you'll see they are riddled with logical inconsistencies and an innate inability to get across the simplest points. After reading him all this time, I still don't really know what he actually likes in cinema. But that's what you get with a guy who has such utter contempt for every other human being.

comment #34

corey3rd says ...

You mean Toni Morrison doesn't write romance novels?

comment #35

lazarus says ...

Well jeffmcm, I didn't think Devil was trash. I enjoyed it. But it did look like shit, and didn't do much of anything visually. For all I know, the camera operator framed all the shots while Lumet was off to the side coaching the actors.

Again, no one (aside from Armond White) is saying Lumet hasn't made a bunch of great films. I just don't think he's an artist of the highest order or should be spoken of in hushed, reverent tones.

Of course, you could say the same thing about Mike Nichols.

comment #36

hanimal says ...

oh please. "romance novel" as a genre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_novel

comment #37

LeeJ says ...

Now we're comparing Mike Nichols to Sidney Lumet? Give me a break. The Graduate is one of my all-time favorite movies. That shot of Anne Bancroft after Dustin Hoffman tells Katharine Ross that he's having an affair with her mother--is priceless. Excellent filmmaking. There were a lot of other shots of distance and alienation in The Graduate. You may not like what Nichols is doing now, but he definitely had a vision back then. Or maybe you guys were still in diapers to remember what he did.

comment #38

Spicer says ...

I come to this site more and more to gain great wisdom and insight. For instance, I had no idea Spielberg was a hack until I read it here. And today I learned that Michael Bay was a great auteur since his films have a "personal visual stamp." I feel like a philistine now for walking out on Armageddon.

comment #39

corey3rd says ...

I bet Armond thinks "I Am Legend" is all about himself - the last intelligent man in Manhattan.

comment #40

jeffmcm says ...

Anybody 'in diapers' when The Graduate came out would now be in their early 40s, so the point of that was...?

comment #41

soap-and-water says ...

it's worth pointing out the serpico and dog day, serpico in particular, have exceptional visual strength. serpico is full of big, strong 1.85 compositions, almost every shot.
anyone watched it lately? 'tis even hotter than you remember.

comment #42

transmogrifier says ...

To atticusrex, re: White

I know that AW despises Michael Mann to the core, but I'm not sure about the other guys. I think he likes Peckinpah, but don't quote me on that.

comment #43

Joe Leydon says ...

Soap and Water: Actually, I watched Serpico again very recently. Ridley Scott obviously studied it before he did American Gangster. But the mentor's work still outshines that of the student.

Oh, and by the way: Sidney Lumet doesn't buy the auetur theory. Never has.

http://www.donshewey.com/arts_articles/sidney_lumet.html

comment #44

swhitty says ...

Well.

No one's ever mistaken me for Armond White before -- for one thing, he's taller -- but I'm the chairman of the NYFCC this year. Don't blame him for that, as others do above.

To answer an earlier comment -- we don't give out runners up. (We're also not supposed to gossip about what happens during the voting -- "What happens in Circle, stays in Circle" -- but that seems to be a lost cause.)

And yes, as someone suspected, we actually follow our bylaws (which are posted, by the way, at our website). A film is eligible the first year it's released in NY -- which is why "Army of Shadows" (which hadn't previously had a U.S.) showing -- was eligible last year, and why "The Lives of Others" was eligible this year.

It's not a conspiracy. It's following the rules.

Enjoy the month -- there are still some great movies to be released.

Stephen Whitty
2007 Chairman

comment #45

lipranzer says ...

"Sidney Lumet is NOT an auteur"

Doesn't mean he can't be a great director. I don't care what Godard and Sarris said in the 60's, one doesn't necessarily follow the other.

And Armond White needs to Shut. Up. Now.

comment #46

p.Vice says ...

Bow to the throne of Armond, you fools!!!! Worship the only critic who has any balls left.

Lumet has made some decent films but Armond is essentially right -- Lumet's work has tons of cinematic dead space in it. He's never been an innovator like the real greats (Altman, Scorsese, Spielberg, etc.), which is why Before the Devil wound up a huge disappointment. It was directed by a follower, not a leader.

comment #47

lazarus says ...

That explains it, Joe. Lumet, a non-auteur, doesn't believe in the auteur theory, so it must be invalid.

And lipranzer, we may be debating semantics, but Lumet is a director of some great films. Does that make him a great director? An artist? I don't know that he has singularly distinguished himself aside from being part of the gritty, East Coast style of the 70's, and I'd argue that there's more cinematic worth in Friedkin's entry in the genre with French Connection (or To Live And Die In L.A.) than any of his films.

More to the point: Why not give the same acclaim to John Frankenheimer? While his career was spottier, he was much more diverse, and had a better visual sense. You can't tell me Lumet was capable of something like the Manchurian Candidate or Seconds.

comment #48

jeffmcm says ...

P. vice, here's the thing - are all of Lumet's films to be disregarded because he's not Spielberg, Scorsese, or Altman? Just because he's not a capital-A Auteur doesn't mean that he hasn't been capable of greatness over his career.

comment #49

atticusrex says ...

Shout out to Transmogrifier: Mr. White hates Michael Mann?! But defends Michael Bay?!

Mann is responsible for one of the best 'made-for-TV-movies ever: The Jericho Mile. And every movie Mann has made good or bad is visual poetry. As for his storytelling abilities married with his 'auteurnes' one has to look no further than The Insider. A perfect movie.

One filmmaker who's visual style I love is Brian DePalma... I just wish his scripts would live up to his camera moves.

I also love David Lean and Sergio Leone. Lean's movies had better acting of course but both filmmakers had one thing in common... they knew how to fill a widescreen. There sense of structure and blocking is awe inspiring.

And I would like to ask Mr. White this as well... What's wrong with a movie 'coasting' by on Acting Chops and not Visual artistry? For instance one of the best movies I have ever scene where the acting is so spot on it hurts and is a tour de force of film acting is GlenGarry Glen Ross.

'nuff said.

comment #50

corey3rd says ...

" Why not give the same acclaim to John Frankenheimer?"

Cause John Frankenheimer died 5 years ago and would have to skip the NYFCC's award dinner - or he'd be very stinky on the podium.

Maybe Armond White doesn't want to eat near Sidney Lumet? Although after White's "He's a hack" speech (which it appears the NYFCC is willing to approve) Lumet is lucky he isn't trapped in a room with White and Rex Reed. The man has only so many years to live, why waste a day with that duo?

comment #51

lazarus says ...

Glengarry Glen Ross wasn't a styleless film, atticus. Foley shot that thing about as well as it could have been. He also did a great job on After Dark, My Sweet.

Funny Corey, but I wasn't talking about NYFCC here, I was talking about all of Lumet's supporters here. More power to him and I hope he makes more films, but he's nothing special, which is why I made the Frankenheimer and Friedkin comparisons. Friedkin is a great director who, until Bug, made a whole lot of worthless shit. And Frankenheimer was still giving us visceral genre work like Ronin late in his career.

comment #52

corey3rd says ...

Why are you having us pit Frankenheimer vs. Lumet? What is this: Highlander? Both guys are names worth knowing. Frankenheimer had his time at the top. then he didn't exactly make people that excited. he returned to TV to make a couple good films (which according to Armond White must be crap since they appeared on TV instead of CINEMA!) and gave us Ronin. Of course he followed it up with Reindeer Games which wore off all the good will from me.

I've met Lumet and he is a special kind of director. I'm put him up there with Albert Maysles as filmmaker who when they shake your hand and look you in the eye, you understand why they are able to capture stuff on film that puts them above those losers that hide out teaching directing in film school.

I'd rather live in a world without Darjeeling Limited instead of Dog Day Afternoon - which Armond White must think is a work of a hack.

comment #53

jeffmcm says ...

I'll put 12 Angry Men/Network/ Dog Day Afternoon/ Murder on the Orient Express up against The French Connection/The Exorcist and The Manchurian Candidate/Seconds/Ronin.

I'll also put Rules of Engagement up against The Island of Dr. Moreau against The Wiz.

comment #54

lazarus says ...

The Island of Doctor Moreau is a glorious, ambitious mess. The Wiz just...sucks. Rules of Engagement doesn't even deserve a comment, though you could have used The Guardian or Jade instead for greater comedic value.

And I don't know what to tell you about those other comparisons. To me it's no contest. 12 Angry Men, Network, and Dog Day are great reps of the times they were made (the first and third notable for the acting, the middle for its screenplay), but The Manchurian Candidate is just one for the ages, a Citizen Kane-level effort of composition/direction and a truly original story.

comment #55

lipranzer says ...

"And lipranzer, we may be debating semantics"

Actually, I'm debating theory. Michael Bay has a "recognizable film style," which according to the theory, makes him an auteur, and therefore a great director. Well, I'm sorry, but I think he's a total hack. To say all that counts is some sort of "visual style," and a director who would rather have his style serve the story is somehow inferior - I'm sorry, but I think that's outrageous. Sure, I revere Frankenheimer and Mann, but they also pay attention to story as much as visual style. I believe Stanley Kauffman (whom I normally dislike, though not as much as Armond White) said it best when he praised a film as being "proof there's nothing wrong with an auteurist director that a good script can't cure."

And Lumet has made more than just "gritty East Coast style films" - RUNNING ON EMPTY, LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT, NETWORK, and THE HILL are examples of great films he did that weren't in that style. Sure, he's made clunkers - what prolific director hasn't? I wouldn't defend DEATHTRAP, THE WIZ, GUILTY AS SIN or others for love or money. But he's got a lot of great ones too.

comment #56

jeffmcm says ...

The Manchurian Candidate is a great film, but it kind of sticks out as an anomaly in Frankenheimer's career, which is otherwise made up of well-crafted action movies and dramas that could have been made by a lot of filmmakers. Even Seconds, which may have been his attempt to make lightning strike twice, doesn't live up to that level (that's the one I'd call an ambitious mess. Island of Dr. Moreau is just a mess).

comment #57

LeeJ says ...

"Long Day's Journey Into Night" was a masterpiece. Katharine Hepburn gave her best performance in it. I remember reading somewhere that Truffaut voted for it to win the Palm D'Or when he was part of the Cannes voting committee that year. It's interesting that an auteur filmmaker like Truffaut voted for a Lumet film to win the Palm D'Or.

comment #58

Marty Melville says ...

I've never read Armond White but this business about Lumet being a "hack" is just laughable bullshit... it sounds like White needs a movie experience where he's constantly reminded that he's watching a MOVIE... tracking, craning, even, for God's sake, zooming.
What would he make of Shoeshine or Umberto D?

comment #59

corey3rd says ...

"The Island of Doctor Moreau is a glorious, ambitious mess"

What was ambitious about it? First off, it wasn't Frankenheimer's film. he was brought in after Richard Stanley was fired after 4 days of shooting. He's a gun for hire on the project. The only reason anyone remembers it is not because of a director's visual stamp, but Brando and the little guy in matching outfits. It's a mess, but it is a mess without ambition. Does it make you forget "Island of Lost Souls?"

Stories from behind the scenes are an "ambitious mess" - what ended up on the screen - just mess.

comment #60

Sean says ...

"I'll put 12 Angry Men/Network/ Dog Day Afternoon/ Murder on the Orient Express up against The French Connection/The Exorcist and The Manchurian Candidate/Seconds/Ronin."

Jeff - you can actually compare Lumet's "12 Angry Men" directly to the one that William Friedkin directed.

One of them is extremely well shot, brilliantly acted, and perfectly cinematic. The other is the one directed by William Friedkin (which still has brilliant acting).

I agree with the idea that Lumet is not an auteur, but I disagree with the idea that auteurs are the only worthwhile directors. Not all "auteurs" are good directors (Bay, Wood), not all "non-auteurs" are bad directors (Lumet, Hawks, Curtiz). And most auteurs' careers get steadily worse the more creative control they have.

Richard Kelly has no recognizable or personal style at all, but people assumed he was an auteur because they liked 'Donnie Darko'. That doesn't seem to have worked out too well for people.

comment #61

George Prager says ...

The comparison between D.Z. and White is right on. They both have Asperger's Syndrome.

comment #62

Sean says ...

Apparently there are two people posting here with the terribly original sobriquet of "Sean." As the other Sean who has posted in this thread, let me say that

Richard Kelly has no recognizable or personal style at all, but people assumed he was an auteur because they liked 'Donnie Darko'. That doesn't seem to have worked out too well for people.

is really funny.

Armond is crazy ... like a fox. Most of the brickbats swung at him here by people who don't read his stuff just don't land.

White is overvaluing visual pyrotechnics at the expense of storytelling or values.

I guess if Lumet would have his actors step up on dollies and be pulled during walking scenes, White would consider him a genius! [What is this a reference to? Seconds? Spike Lee, generically? I don't think White has liked any Lee film besides Do the Right Thing (this is also covered in the interview)]

it sounds like White needs a movie experience where he's constantly reminded that he's watching a MOVIE... tracking, craning, even, for God's sake, zooming.

All that misses the mark. Those who have actually read him, and still diss him, bring up valid points. But everyone who hasn't read him seriously misestimates him.

Also, this

White is completely off-base when he says "AW: It's fucked things up. It especially fucked up the critical profession, because people can't tell the difference between television and movies anymore."

Why should we? Was Larry the Cable Guy in Health Inspector superior to TV because it was a film?

The Wire is the best thing of the last decade - I put it up against any dramatic movie. And it was shot on film like a crappy Michael Bay film.

is missing the point.

comment #63

Sean says ...

Whoops. And, unfortunately, the way this log-in system works, neither of us can change our name now, can we?

comment #64

Sean says ...

[still the Kelly-knocking one]

I don't read White, so does it miss the point when I say that I have a big problem with Wes Anderson because he has no cinematic storytelling abilities? I'm saying, everything about character and story in his movies is delivered in dialogue (or narration), as opposed to any more cinematic approach.

This is also true of 'Network', where Lumet was not allowed to change the screenplay. Lines like "You are television incarnate" have never sat well with me because, yeah Paddy, we got that from the movie. Don't need to be beaten over the head with it.

It is not true of, for instance, 'Dog Day Afternoon', in my opinion.

comment #65

christian says ...

Lumet directed NETWORK. He's in the hall of film fame -- period.
And Lumet's style is rare: it's called Get The Fuck Out Of The Way.

For one of the best insider looks at Lumet or any director, go read Pauline Kael's essay on the making of THE GROUP. No way would this close-up look be allowed today, but Lumet's strengths and flaws are analyzed through Kael's intimate reportage.

comment #66

atticusrex says ...

It's Moi again... I just got back from actually seeing Before The Devil Knows Your Dead. The statements I have made here today were based on Lumet's previous work and Mr. White's comments.

Now I admit I have never heard nor read Armond White. But why does that matter? Does that make my opinions any less? Sure he gets paid for his... so what?!

Now about BTDKYD: Damn Good! Is there great camera work? Is there beautiful lighting? The answer is a resounding NO. What there is is a stunningly realistic view of our world. Places seem lit like they should be. There is no 'look at me ma' camera work. There shouldn't have to be... Lumet trusts enough in the script and his cast and wants the feeling that this is really happening. He does use 'Time' as a device sure... and I am not sure if the story needed it but it didn't detract from the film at all.

There is no HACK I am aware of that could have gotten those performances. In fact in all of Lumet's best films it's the acting that gets all the attention which means attention is also being given to the script... gee that's a novel thought. So yes Lumet is an Actor's Auteur filmmaker. Heck it's why I go to his movies... for the tough story/performances.

comment #67

Sean says ...

This is Sean the Other.

I really have no particular interest in defending White to the death, but, Atticus:

Now I admit I have never heard nor read Armond White. But why does that matter? Does that make my opinions any less? Sure he gets paid for his... so what?!

I never suggested that White's opinions were more valuable than anyone else's because he's a professional critic ... but since you bring it up, I will go ahead and suggest it, because it's true. A professional critic has a responsibility that you, a moviegoer, does not, and a critic does not simply offer opinions. Now, the extent to which that's actually *practiced* among pro critics ... well ....

All I meant when I suggested that the detractors who hadn't read White were making a lot of wrong suppositions about what he does or doesn't or would or wouldn't advocate.

As to the rest of your comment, atticus, and keeping it in line with the subject matter on hand here: OK, you liked BYDKYD. What about it makes it a movie? What's cinematic about it? How is it not television + a nude Marisa Tomei? White grants that Long Day's Journey Into Night is great because it's a great play + a great cast, but that doesn't absolve Lumet in his eyes. I haven't seen BYDKYD, and have no real opinion on this particular matter apart from a fondness for several Lumet films, but let's not reduce the argument to "I liked it, Armond didn't, it's a horse apiece."

comment #68

corey3rd says ...

How is Das Boot not TV?