Genius. When paired with his wife Gena Rowlands, responsible for some of the greatest films of the era. Check out Love Streams, A Woman Under The Influence, and Opening Night, among others.
He was a brilliant filmmaker. I once got to talk with Frederick Elmes about shooting “The Killing of a Chinese Bookie”. He said, “I’d shoot it very differently today. I was so young then that I hadn’t yet developed a style.”
Never heard of the name. Or I guess I might have read it in credits, but never associated brain space to it and also never noticed a commonality between movies based on him. 🤷
So to quote from Futurama: I have no strong opinion one way or the other.
Wow. I’m glad you asked and look forward to people’s opinions.
I just watched Mikey and Nickey (after reading about Elaine May’s role in the start of improv). The treatment of women was terrible to see but the acting was incredible.
He was definitely an alcoholic, maybe a messiah of art outside of the even-more-predominant-today “industry.” Definitely a misogynist, not sure about genius. Probs?
Not a huge fan, but I think his Columbo episode “Etude in Black” is genius. HIS genius? Not sure.
I’d love to hear others’ thoughts about this auteur. Yes, this is not an original question, but I’ve never been able to ask anyone else about the subject.
This is actually a really famous and interesting copyright case that established some important bounds of copyright. How much of an artist’s intent is necessary to claim copyright? Can an artist set up a situation in which some creative product is produced?
There is actually a lot of animal photography that is dependent on the animal itself to trigger the camera, such as trail photos or even those cute photos of squirrels interacting with dollhouse furniture like tiny little humans. There is a lot of meticulous planning, experimentation, and patience that goes into “spontaneous” photographs.
This also set a huge precedent for legal cases around AI image generation, didn’t it? Since that also falls under “works not created by a human” and are therefore not copyrightable. We could have been dealing with a much bleaker AI art law situation than we have today because of this funny monkey photo case.
en.wikipedia.org
Active