OscarGuy wrote:I didn't say I thought the performances were good. I don't recall having said any such thing.
…not precisely, but you did say…
OscarGuy wrote:I looked at what there was to offer and by rolo's definition, James Cameron was the best "conductor" of the bunch.
…which lead me to wonder…
OscarGuy wrote:I am not sure if you think the director has nothing to do with the performances or (even scarier) you think the performances in AVATAR are good! If it is the latter, than clearly we not only disagree on what constitutes good directing but also what constitutes good acting.
With no clarification from you I was left with only my understanding of what you said. You think James Cameron did a good job directing AVATAR, which means you either a) thought the performances in the film were good or b) do not factor the performances from a film into your judgment on the quality of the directing.
OscarGuy wrote:I don't think Bigelow deserved the Oscar because she is not better than at least four of her competitors and brings nothing new to the material. Her directing is flat and emotionless.
I have no idea how directing can be “flat” and “emotionless,” but I am sure it is probably because I am once again taking these words too literally. By “flat” perhaps you mean visually uninteresting and emotionless means bad acting, and if so then I must vigorously disagree. As for the “nothing new,” I once again politely ask what war film THE HURT LOCKER matches in style and tone. I can honestly think of none, but if I am missing the film(s) you are thinking about please let me know.
OscarGuy wrote:But, you don't value my contributions anymore, so I guess there's no need for you to continue to respond.
If I thought everything you were saying was wrong, I would have just said that. When you brought up certain examples of directors or films to support your opinion, I gave you my impression of those directors or films. When you mentioned film history or certain film theories, I gave examples of other film history or film theories. I paid attention to everything you wrote about your opinion of what makes great film directing, and countered it with how I define great directing and why. That is what I call a good conversation.
If I was not listening to what you were saying, why would I waste any time actually talking about what you wrote? I would just respond to every one of your posts with, “No, OscarGuy, you are wrong!” I never said your opinions were wrong, I just said I had different opinions. That is what I thought our conversation was about.
In fact, I even acknowledged when you had a good point. For example, when I was making it seem like the director just shoots what the screenwriter creates, I admitted I was going too far by citing the quote about a film being created three times (screenplay, shooting, editing). You then responded by saying you too realized how important the editor was to creating the film. I thought that was us giving each other credit for making valid points. Clearly I was mistaken.
The only opinion of yours I simply could not abide was that women should be held to a different standard than men when it came to directing. It is that opinion that outraged me and several other folks on this thread. I never would have thought you felt that way. That seems more like an opinion criddic3 would hold, not you. No matter how much you try to qualify it as a good thing, I still think it puts female directors at a disadvantage. I think male and female directors should be judged equally. That is the only opinion of yours I find distasteful. Everything else we can just agree-to-disagree on.
I say again, I enjoyed our conversation. You did not change my opinion about directors in general or Bigelow specifically, but you made me think about things I had not considered before and certainly encouraged me to match you point-by-point on film knowledge. You truly know your Oscar and film history, and it was fun talking with you. As the next Oscar season begins, I will look forward to debating with you again. Bye for now!