After successively filming such unworldly masterpieces as "Alien" and "Blade Runner", Ridley Scott's reputation in the early 1980s Reaching an unprecedented culmination, the eyes of the whole world seem to be watching this talented and late blooming director. No one would have thought that this British man who had shown talent in the field of television and commercials in his early years, after only a few years of first involvement in the film industry, seemed to be a superb director in horror films and science fiction films. His name is written forever on the roster for future generations to worship.
"2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Blade Runner" represent the highest achievement in the field of science fiction, and there are still people arguing about it; and after "Alien", aliens began to invade the earth officially, only in " Behind the brand "Alien", two directors like James Cameron and David Fincher are silently hidden, but even their brilliance was pioneered by Ridley Scott Was overwhelmed.
Christopher Nolan, who was in his adolescence at the time, admired his fellow Englishman beyond words, just as he admired Hitchcock. But Nolan might not have imagined that nearly 30 years later, his childhood idol director, in his 70s, is still struggling for the Oscar for best director award. When "The Lord of the Rings" was in power, he duly launched "The Kingdom of Heaven", and its directorial version was still beyond the ordinary level, and it was not even inferior in terms of momentum; and when "A Life with a Cup of Wine" was highly respected, Ridley Scott, like Alexander Payne, picked up the wine glass leisurely and began to taste life, but said "A Good Year in Time".
But this kind of behavior is similar to "seeing the wind" and "wagging for mercy", which has never won the favor of the Oscar judges. They can at best give you a nomination to take care of your old-fashioned misery, but they will never follow your will. Comparing the experience of Martin Scorsese in "The Aviator" and "The Infinite Walker" can't be clearer. When you scold more than 200 fucks without fear and fear, Xiao Jinren will obediently give up. Or, if you can be as hard as Robert Altman, and only shoot the movies you really want to make in your life, the Oscars will not give you a lifetime achievement award or something, and you will be completely convinced by your persistence and ethics. But Ridley Scott is clearly not.
He happens to be very mainstream. Even an innovative work like "The End of the Wild Flower" that can be used as a textbook for feminist research also reflects the most direct social problems in American society. As for war epics like "Gladiator", the personal heroism it promotes is also in line with the appetite of Americans, winning double harvests in the critics and box office; not to mention the fact that "Devil Girl" and "Black Hawk Down" have How pleased the government and the audience. Ridley Scott’s mainstream nature is more reflected in the diversity of his films. As mentioned earlier, he can shoot various types of films as long as he wants to meet the tastes of the public and critics. And beyond the standard, the box office rose all the way. His skills are becoming more and more sophisticated, and his ability to grasp the plot is so perfect. The twists and turns of the high IQ crimes in "The Match Man" reflect this. When putting all these films together, you can't even imagine that films with such different styles are actually made by the same person!
In other words, he has never produced a masterpiece that can represent the pinnacle of his artistic creation. What we still miss now is the movie "Blade Runner" that has waited ten years before being recognized by the public and chanted far ahead of the times. But no one dared to make a conclusion for him. For thirty years, Ridley Scott’s creative enthusiasm has remained unabated. He has almost reached the stage of launching masterpieces every year, and no one knows when he can let him again. People are amazing, no one can tell. No one even noticed that he had reached an ancient age without knowing it. He is too short of a movie like Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List" to speak for his own strength. Although the comprehensiveness that he has shown to control various film types is rare in the world, except for Kubrick, who can be the right one?
And this is exactly his sorrow. This half-way British man was gradually assimilated in American society, and the genius he showed in his early years has been replaced by more and more impeccable craftsmanship. One of the tragedies created by the Hollywood film industry is that a strong man like Ridley Scott, who is very likely to become a great master, has been polished into an outstanding craftsman, which is embarrassing.
PS: This is my first article in the "Vernacular Director" series. Compared with many film masters, Ridley Scott's name may not be outstanding. He has neither a peerless genius like Francis Coppola nor a humanistic pursuit like Ingmar Bergman. Compared with Clint Eastwood, he immediately showed mediocre talent and not lucky enough. . Even compared to younger generations like Danny Boyle and Christopher Nolan, he is not cool enough, and old-fashioned. But he just represents the ordinary majority. It is the combined efforts of these directors that propped up the sky of film art. And from this perspective, Ridley Scott's diligence and unswerving enthusiasm has reached the point where people are eye-catching. He represents a realm that can be achieved by a director who does not have enough talent. In front of such an old director, you can not be impressed by him, but you have to be moved and deeply admire him.
http://prepare.blogbus.com/logs/8104751.html
View more about Blade Runner reviews
