comment #1

Glenn Kenny says ...

On the other hand, Luis Bunuel was hitting it out of the park every time from pretty much "Nazarin," made in '59 at age 59, all the way to "That Obscure Object of Desire," at age 77. Whether or not you dig Rohmer, his output was pretty damned consistent all the way up to age 87. Another 87-year-old, Alain Resnais, just signed off on one of his best films, "Wild Grass." Rivette's still got it at 80, Godard's getting up there. Lumet's always itching to get back behind a camera.

I wouldn't count Scorsese out. Given opportunity and means, he could make another dazzling personal film. Although I think he would admit that trying to make a "Raging Bull" at his age could kill him! And say what you will about Coppola's "Tetro," it had an energy you could call youthful.

comment #2

Glenn Kenny says ...

Hey, your stupid comments function won't let you put a tilda over the "n" in "Bunuel." How annoying is that?

comment #3

EDouglasCS says ...

I'd just be happy if Allen would bother to do a THIRD TAKE from time to time when his actors don't get it on the first and second one.

comment #4

corey3rd says ...

Annie Hall and Manhattan had the guy talking from his life. He doesn't want to go that deep anymore for fear of his wife not liking the vision of what he thinks of her.

comment #5

mpneeb says ...

So, no love for Clint Eastwood to be seen here?

comment #6

Rich S. says ...

Clint Eastwood pretty much blows that theory out of the water. True, his latest films may not be masterpieces, but they are solid Hollywood entertainments and Eastwood never mails it in while directing.

Plus, Eastwood did make his one undisputed masterpiece at the age of 62. Most would consider Unforgiven better than any of the films he made in his youth.

comment #7

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Old Clint Eastwood has proven to be a deeper, more skillful and adventurous director than the younger Eastwood of the '70s and '80s.

comment #8

jackkerouac says ...

How about your guy Steven Spielberg? 'Schindler's List', 'Jurassic Park', 'Saving Private Ryan', 'Catch Me If You Can' 'Munich', etc. all made in the latter part of his career... Just like Eastwood it could be argued that, with age, Spielberg has also become a "deeper, more skillful and adventurous director".

comment #9

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Which is why everyone loves Clint so much. Because they love the idea of getting better and more of a grand master as they get older. It doesn't usually work that way.

comment #10

Rich S. says ...

I will grant you that Eastwood is largely an exception to the rule that older directors generally don't make better pictures than when they were young.

But that doesn't mean that older directors can't produce some very good films. Hitchcock directed North by Northwest at 60, Psycho at 61 and Frenzy at 73. Billy Wilder directed the Fortune Cookie at 60. Howard Hawks directed Rio Bravo at 64. And so on.

comment #11

Eloi Manning says ...

There aren't many truly young directors around these days. If someone makes their feature debut at age 35 they're considered a young up-and-comer. In sports you'd be winding down your career at that age.

comment #12

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Have you sat down and really watched "Frenzy" lately? I did, and I don't mind saying it was damned underwhelming. The received wisdom from the High Council of Film Dweeb Elders is that "Frenzy" was a creative bounce-back for Hitchcock after the torpor of "Marnie," "Torn Curtain" and "Topaz." The fact is that it's a fairly lackluster and indifferently paced film about a London necktie murderer that is elevated by a few set pieces. The set pieces are what work, not the film. Some of the dialogue and certain scenes in "Frenzy" are dreadful.

comment #13

Ryansi51 says ...

Eloi maybe we should have a March Madness where 64 young filmmakers each submit a film, the public watches them online and votes, and we get down to the final four and champion, etc.

shit, someone's gonna steal that arent they?

comment #14

markj says ...

The new Avatar trailer looks amazing. I don't think Cameron has lost his youthful vibe just yet, despite the increase in his production budget.

comment #15

corey3rd says ...

The trailer for Frenzy is Hitchcock at his teasing best.

comment #16

ElstonGunnAICN says ...

I came to mention Boon-well (just type it phonetically, Mr. Kenny) as well.

Barry Levinson's episode of ESPN's 30 FOR 30 last week, The Band That Wouldn't Die was great.

comment #17

Gaydos says ...

John Huston. Prizzi's Honor. Wise Blood. Fat City. Under the Volcano. The Dead.

comment #18

Rich S. says ...

I watched Frenzy again about a year ago. It's not vintage Hitchcock, true, but those set pieces you describe are still very effective. Plus, taken in context, the subject matter was downright shocking for 1972. I would still list it as a must-see for any Hitchcock fan.

comment #19

Eloi Manning says ...

"The new Avatar trailer looks amazing. I don't think Cameron has lost his youthful vibe just yet, despite the increase in his production budget."

It looks good, but it's helped a lot by Steve Jablonsky's 'My Name is Lincoln' from The Island which is the go-to tune for making a badass trailer. Elizabeth: The Golden Age looked like a timeless classic when it was backed by that bombastic score.

comment #20

Bilge says ...

The history of international cinema is littered with great filmmakers who made some of their best work in (and in a couple of cases didn't even get going until) their later years: Carl Theodor Dreyer, Robert Bresson, Chris Marker, Akira Kurosawa, all the people Kenny named, etc.

The problem is that the American cinema practically has an age limit, for a variety of reasons: Because Hollywood fetishizes youth (and indie films secretly fetishize whatever Hollywood fetishizes), because many American filmmakers are actually fulltime fundraisers first and part-time filmmakers second, because film production in the US is a far more high-pressure environment than abroad, etc.

That's not to say it can't be done, especially if you're successful in some other part of the industry (say, acting or screenwriting) and can get keep people interested in you.

Even so, Eastwood has always been kind of an anomaly: He didn't even really become a movie star until his mid-30s, at a point when he was ready to give up acting.

comment #21

dinther says ...

I wld take kubrick's later work, which is much more subtle and psychological than his early stuff.

same with Bergman.

perhaps the difference is that the older you get, the less you are impressed by grand gestures than by more discreet moments of beauty.

comment #22

arch451 says ...

The Woody Allen quote simply means that he now accepts his limitations as an artist. He is not implying that he is more or less capable of perfection than when he was younger. Match Point is his best film afterall.

comment #23

nemo says ...

In Day for Night, Truffaut's film director character says something along similar lines about the evolution of his attitude towards an individual film.

He said he always starts off thinking this film will be great. It will be my master work. Then a few days into filming reality begins to set it. He says to himself this may not be a masterpiece, but it will be a very good film. Somewhere near the end of the second week of filming he's praying just to get out of this nightmare alive.

comment #24

drbob says ...

I don't know how you define young Cameron as everything he did before Avatar. How do you know Avatar won't be great? Even if its bad, are you arguing that one film means he is in old age decline.

comment #25

Guy Lodge says ...

Is Clint Eastwood really getting BETTER as he gets older? He works with admirable persistence, and still has a pretty healthy hit-to-miss ratio, but has he ever really topped "Unforgiven?" I don't think so.

comment #26

Daviddb says ...

Glenn K---You're my new hero for mentioning Luis B. Sadly he seems to always be the forgotten master when great directors' names are brought up. Some of his films are still not available (though Criterion slowly is putting them out).

As far as Frenzy, I think it holds up fine...after all, wasn't it Truffaut who told Hitchcock, "It's the work of a young director" (or words to that effect). I'd like to know what dialogue Jeff is referring to...Anthony Shaffer is not exactly a slouch in that department.

comment #27

George Prager says ...

J. Lee Thompson, age 48: CAPE FEAR
J. Lee Thompson, age 75: KINJITE: FORBIDDEN SUBJECTS

I rest my case.

comment #28

raygo says ...

Match Point is NOT Woody Allen's best film. That would be Crimes and Misdemeanors, of which Match Point is a very pale imitation. Allen scored Director and Writer Oscar nominations for C&M. I always thought Match Point was just a gimmick he came up with to spend some more time ScarJo.

comment #29

lipranzer says ...

Billy Wilder made two of my favorites of his in late 60's - THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES and AVANTI. True, after that wasn't that great, but those two stand up with his best, I think.

And count another one for Bergman - SARABAND, his last film, was my second favorite film of that year, behind BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN.

As for Allen's comment, this is nothing new. I remember him saying the same thing way back in an interview for Rolling Stone 20 years ago or so - that if it was a choice between staying to get the shot perfect, or, say, going to the Knicks game, he chose the Knicks game every time.

comment #30

corey3rd says ...

As a director gets older, they realize that if they want to stay in the game, they need to make certain compromises. Not everyone can have as long and glorious career as Norman Taurog - wins the Best director award in 1931 and at age 68, he's still creating groundbreaking movies with Elvis.

Far as the best Woody Allen film post-Manhattan - it's Wild Man Blues.

comment #31

markj says ...

@ Eloi: My attention was on the shots and dialogue in the new trailer, didn't pay much attention to the score. Is it the same as was used on the teaser trailer?

comment #32

arch451 says ...

Crimes and Misdemeanors was like a preliminary study for the true master work that is Match Point.

comment #33

BurmaShave says ...

Well the Knicks aren't what they once were, maybe he feels differently now.

comment #34

Eloi Manning says ...

markj: No, it's a different score. The first trailer had cool music anyway, but it was more a sort of tense, noisy type thing. The new one has more traditional Hollywood action trailer music, but it definitely looks badass. Looking forward to seeing it on a decent website and not the crappy video copies uploaded so far.

comment #35

raygo says ...

arch451 ... if you're serious, I'm guessing you're in your 20s?

comment #36

arch451 says ...

I am serious and I am 31 years old. Perhaps it is a generational thing, like you seem to be implying, and I am susceptible to current fads of tastes. Or, perhaps you saw Crimes and Misdemeanors when you were a young man and it left an indelible impression on you. Let's wait a generation and then see which movie holds up...

comment #37

Terry McCarty says ...

Glenn Kenny wrote:
And say what you will about Coppola's "Tetro," it had an energy you could call youthful.

Agree.

WHATEVER WORKS had its moments, but was a bit dinner-theater for me. Hoping that Woody's latest will be exponentially better.

comment #38

dkaye says ...

Match Point is a fine movie, but it does pale in comparison to Crimes & Misdemeanors. For one thing, ScarJo in the former is the weak link acting-wise for such a crucial character. Second, Match Point focused on just the one storyline -- Crimes encompassed several, all tied to Woody's central theme, which gave it almost an epic quality. Crimes is a statement; Match Point is a restatement.

comment #39

M. Hulot says ...

Arch451,

With all due respect, I can't help but wonder what other films you consider to be true master works? Seriously, ylcan you provide a list of these other titles?

There are literally dozens of books, articles, commentaries written about Crimes & Misdemeanors. It's is considered by most film scholars to be one of the best films of Allen's career, as well as one of the best films of the 80's, and also of the last 25 years.

On the other hand, Match Point, although successful in terms of not sucking as compared with most of Allen's output of the last decade, has not warranted such a response from critics and scholars alike because it is considered to be light. Especially when compared with a movie that is far more complex--storywise, plotwise, psychologically, philosophically, etc, etc, etc.
The fact that you can't recognize the obvious, that Crimes' qualities not only far outweigh those of Match's, but that they are not even in the same league, calls into your critical judgement.

comment #40

Phatang! says ...

Yeah, sorry Arch. Match Point is kind of dumb--"ooh, some things happen by chance." Not to mention there's absolutely no charisma in his lead characters, which is Allen's great genius.

I think everyone's misinterpreting the quote. He's not talking about being less ambitious, he's talking about being less arrogant and finding (and accepting) your voice. Maybe this can have the effect of being less ambitious, but I don't think that's what he was trying to say. Woody Allen made numerous great movies in the 80s, when he was no longer "young." And now movie making is clearly about survival to him, not art, which is his own business.

comment #41

Josh Massey says ...

Woody's masterwork is The Curse of the Jade Scorpion. Or Hollywood Ending. One of the two.

comment #42

Bob Violence says ...

Piranha is indeed a great movie, too bad for James Cameron he directed Piranha II

comment #43

Doug Pratt says ...

So Sidney Lumet should pack it in, then

comment #44

arch451 says ...

M. Hulot:
I am well aware of the status of Crimes and Misdemeanors and I don't happen to agree with the consensus, which, by the way, is not quite as high as you think it is, and you take from this that I don't know what films are masterworks? Sorry to offend your sensibilities about your beloved film but it's not like I am bashing The Godfather. It's certainly an excellent film but Match Point is much more focused and, I think, a stronger artistic statement. It is bold. I think less is more in this case.

comment #45

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"There are literally dozens of books, articles, commentaries written about Crimes & Misdemeanors. It's is considered by most film scholars to be one of the best films of Allen's career, as well as one of the best films of the 80's, and also of the last 25 years."

A bit disingenuous of you to suggest how much more media there is about a movie that came out a good 15 years before Match Point was released. What does that prove, exactly? I just did a google search on the two titles, and I came up with about 3x as many hits on MP compared to C&M. Of course, this is complicated by the fact that many of these hits likely have nothing to do with actual films. But I say all this to illustrated how fucking silly your own argument is.

You do realize that when you say a movie is "far more complex--storywise, plotwise, psychologically, philosophically, etc, etc, etc." that is just your opinion, yes? One I happen to agree with, granted, as I think a lot of the themes and moods Allen is targeting in MP are generally more well-explored in C&M, but I absolutely think they're in the same "league," cinematically. And I'll go so far to say I actually find certain elements of his later work -- namely the acting (yes, even Scar-Jo) and the sexual tension -- to be more believable than his earlier work.

And it's not just me (or arch) that finds MP to be a very fine film. When it was released, it had accolades and praise lopped upon it. Many well-respected critics and scholars gave it four-star reviews, and raved about how it was a "return to form." Many also cited it was one of Allen's 5-10 best films. Both were Oscar-nominated for Best Original Screenplay.

You inexplicably act like the dude has only produced one masterpiece, when the truth of it is his vast body of work includes many fine, diverse films in many genres: Stardust Memories, Sleeper, Zelig, Sweet and Lowdown, etc. I don't love them all, of course, but I do appreciate a filmmaking range that allows at least someone to love any one given flick. Manhattan is actually my favorite Woody Allen film, but why chastise someone's taste (and age) for preferring one over another???

Pretty ironic that you choose to start off your post with such a faux-respectful phrase, as the rest of your response paints you as a total condescending prick. With all due respect, of course ;-).

Anyway, staying on topic here, surprised nobody's mentioned Kurosawa. Granted, it's kind of a cheap selection because he was such a consistently great director throughout his entire career, but I'd argue the quality of his later films did not taper off one bit. I'd actually argue the same is true of Polanski (I think you can make a legitimate case for The Pianist being his best ever), but I doubt many people would agree with me on that.

comment #46

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Way to stick to your guns, arch. I certainly agree that it's a great film. But the most important thing is that you think it is.

comment #47

Gordon27 says ...

Match Point is one-half of Crimes and Misdemeanors with a really unsubtle tennis metaphor strung throughout. I even prefer 'Cassandra's Dream' to 'Match Point'.

But that tennis metaphor is one of the few times Woody Allen actually manages to "show don't tell" in one of his movies. I wouldn't have minded it if the movie hadn't dwelled on it so much. I could definitely see liking Match Point more if you don't like Woody Allen movies.

'Crimes and Misdemeanors' gets better every time I watch it, except for the time that it suddenly dawned on me who the 14-year-old female family member for whom Woody becomes a surrogate father was a stand-in for. Thinking about what 14-year-old girl Woody was taking to the movies in 1989 under those circumstances soured the movie for me a little bit.

But only a little bit.

comment #48

Gordon27 says ...

And I don't think the equation is that difficult... the older and more established a director gets, the less likely it is that somebody will tell him his ideas are crap. Every director needs people who aren't afraid to tell him his ideas are crap.

comment #49

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Big fan of Cassandra's Dream, too, Gordon. I think you could probably make the argument that if Match Point is one-half Crimes and Misdemeanors, CD is the other half of C&M: Revisited. And I mean this in a good way, actually.

But, as with MP, I think there's some unique stuff that makes it a strong film on its own instead of just being a pure retread of the same themes. In particular, I found the Colin Farrell character fascinating. He expressed real tangible guilt and anxiety in a way I wasn't used to seeing in a Woody Allen film -- even his "serious" ones. It's as though he turned that trademark, hammy neuroses (which is usually exaggerated & directed outward for laughs) on its head, dialing the guilt and anxiety inward, instead. It's kind of a scary performance in its depiction of raw, moral desperation.

I appreciate that the movie doesn't downplay the importance of financial security is in moral matters, either. That's something I find pretty rare among even Allen's finer work -- I find myself not really believing that most of his characters make as much money as they do, or for that matter, even work at all!

Totally agree with your #48 post. Kind of a shame you don't see more established filmmakers going outside their comfort zone -- or working with people outside their circle of trust -- more often. I was pretty impressed with how Van Sant followed up the highly successful Good Will Hunting with that string of smaller, indie films like Gerry, Elephant, Last Days, and Paranoid Park.

Okay, I just went on imdb, and I guess technically he didn't follow up GWH with those films, but instead Psycho and Finding Forrester, which were kind of dull, big-budgeters (I actually found the former pretty interesting, but that's probably because the original is among my favorite movies of all-time). And I found Milk pretty disappointingly by-the-numbers for a biopic. But like Soderbergh, he is still taking risks, even if he's made nearly as many "safe" choices for the Eloi in that timespan.

comment #50

Terry McCarty says ...

Slightly off-topic response to CitizenKaned's post:
Steven Soderbergh, in a recent EMPIRE interview, talked about making his own video edits of other people's films--such as a 110-minute version of HEAVEN'S GATE and a mashup of both the Hitchcock/Van Sant versions of PSYCHO.

comment #51

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

That's interesting, Terry, I hadn't read that (I normally try to read Empire whenever I can, too). Dude's a film geek through-and-through, gotta love that.