A Modern Day Fleming?
Wednesday, May 2, 2012 at 1:48PM 
Jose here. I am fully aware that Stephen Daldry isn't among the most beloved filmmakers in the world; however, I feel that he's earned a bad rep on some extremely unfair bases, given that he excels at a kind of filmmaking that was the norm during Hollywood's golden age. His entire career seems to have been made to piss off auteur theorists, and today on Mr. Daldry's 52nd birthday, I couldn't help but wonder: is he a modern day Victor Fleming?
How dare I compare the meek Stephen Daldry to the almighty man who won an Oscar for directing Gone With the Wind, you ask? Easy, I'm not comparing him to Fleming in particular but to an array of studio-commissioned directors whose names passed into history because they won the favor of powerful producers. Think about it, can you mention more than two movies made by Frank Lloyd, Norma Taurog, Frank Borzage, Michael Curtiz and Victor Fleming? Except for the latter two, all the others are mostly unknown names to cinephiles, yet they all won Best Director Oscars (Lloyd even won it twice!).
We never hear people talking about the psychological undertones in a Borzage movie, or the expressionistic camera work in a Victor Fleming production, do we? Then why are Daldry's movies always accused of being so devoid of personality? Is there really anything wrong with not wanting to be an "auteur"?
The auteur theory claims that a director's signature should be identifiable in each of his works. With Daldry, it's completely undeniable that you can't tell any of his movies were made by the same person, at least not in purely aesthetic terms (let's not even go into the whole politics of awards season hatred). The most recurrent criticism with Stephen Daldry's works is that they are tailor made for Oscar (beloved literary piece is transformed into efficient, personality-less cinema acted by pedigree cast) and truth be told, is there anything essentially wrong with this? The idea that cinema should be high-brow art is debatable (this coming from someone who lives and swears by Tarkovsky) and it has been a pet peeve of mine when it comes to Daldry. His movies may not be transcendental or life-altering, but they are efficient and rarely fail to entertain (heck he even got the best Meryl Streep performance in well over two decades!).
If we must play the game of "give everything a profound or intellectually stimulating" meaning then I leave you with the following questions: have you all noticed the use, or lack of use actually of Nazi symbols in The Reader and how it underplays on the contraposition between literacy and semiotics? Or have you thought of Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close as a study of how to manipulate certain human emotioncs based on collective history? I'm not saying that Daldry is the second coming, I'm just saying that we should cut him some slack.
Are there any other film directors you think people hate on unfounded/shallow/insane/random/WTF reasons? Share with us!
Kate Winslet, Nicole Kidman, Oscars (00s), Stephen Daldry
Reader Comments (20)
heck he even got the best Meryl Streep performance in well over two decades
The Hours was her best ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww....Laughs
I've thought the auteur theory has been way oversold for years; we all know it's origins (right?), but to say that "auteur" films are the only important ones (and "auteurist directors" the only ones that count) is discounting the most of cinema history.
I agree with absolutely everything you say here, Jose!
They way people rag on Daldry pisses me off, and I do think a lot of it is rooted in Oscar nomination politics. But, seriously, the guy knows what he's doing, and I don't think you can really say that any of his films are bad, much less failures. He does seem to be very much of the Old Hollywood journeyman director school, and there ain't nothing wrong with that!
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
You know that this is an issue dear to my heart, so I’m glad that you’re putting it out there. Each time someone brings this up I want to scream at them, Look at the man’s oeuvre. We’ve got: BILLY ELLIOT, a comedic/drama, coming of age film, THE HOURS a decades-spanning adaptation of a very complex novel, THE READER, a look at guilt and shame spanning decades (and not a “Holocaust” film as is pejoratively described, and god knows why even if it was it’d be a problem) and EL&IC – a contemporary look at the parent/children relationship.
Yes, this is a man who clearly has a paucity of talent? Sigh. Just look at how fantastic he is with his actors (obviously something from his stage roots).
/ Is there really anything wrong with not wanting to be an "auteur"?/
Also, the above is so significant. Sure, being an auteur is something laudable, but why does that mean filmmakers who are not auteurs are not as significant? Why does a filmmaker need to put a stamp on each of his films for it to be “good” film? What happened to New Criticism? (And furthermore, half of the people bandying around words like “auteur” aren’t even using them correctly.”
Which brings me to the question you ask – Joe Wright is a director I feel people hate irrationally. I actually heard someone say after Hanna that at least he’s making “real movies instead of sticking to boring period films”, and I think. WTF? But, I just can’t deal with it.
Sorry for the long comment, I have many feelings. Obviously.
Bravo and well said. Toss in the fact that Daldry's direction for the stage adaptation of "Billy Elliot" was one of the finest I've seen for a musical and this man deserves some major props.
There is a clear unifying thread to his film work, though; each film in some way is about childhood being assaulted by adults and the ramifications of that later in life.
he has directed 6 people to noms with 4 films ,his gift bwith actors is great,spielberg only directed 9 people to noms in 30 years.
I do prefer my movies when they are result of personal artistic expression, so yes, I think "auteur" movies are at least more interesting to see.
That said, to have a distinct artistic voice doesn't mean you need a big "THEME" to back. Sometimes you only need style. Daldry has no theme, no style; he may make efficient movies, but who cares when they don't come from the heart? Gimme Almodóvar, WKW, Sofia Coppola, etc, just to name a few contemporary directors, and not this "professional" stuff.
Agree with the overall thesis - I think Daldry gets a bad wrap. But this jumped out at me:
"We never hear people talking about the psychological undertones in a Borzage movie, or the expressionistic camera work in a Victor Fleming production, do we?"
Say what now? I wouldn't claim that it's in the mainstream of contemporary cinephilia, but Borzage has absolutely been the subject of an auteurist reappraisal in recent years, with stylistic and thematic links across his body of work explored in pretty good depth.
And as for Fleming, can't remember where, but I read a really great article or blog post years ago that broke down how you can totally tell who directed which parts of Gone with the Wind based on mise en scene - Sam Wood vs. George Cukor vs. Fleming, etc. Most of these guys had very distinct, recognizable visual styles as the physical production of the movie - shot selection, choreography, etc - was often the only aspect of the production over which they exerted real control.
Interesting take. I personally have gotten tired of him because I love both "Billy Elliott" and "The Hours," but his last two outings were disappointing for me. He certainly manipulates emotions, but paired with the right story, that can be a wonderful thing. Sometimes the story simply won't support him, though, and then his tone seems completely off. I think he is partially hated because he was 3/3 on Director nods for his first three films, and I'm glad he missed this time so we didn't hear the grumbling.
Actually, what really works best for him is letting actors have their own space. I've heard plenty of debates on performances in "The Hours," but I thought the entire cast was phenomenal. Streep was not only brilliant, but I have never seen a character that reflects my mother's emotional palate so perfectly, despite the two of them having nothing in common as people. He indulges emotions and revels in it, which is refreshing. It relies heavily on the actors, though, which is why he needs solid casts and writing. If anything is off, it's an uncomfortable sit.
For some reason it never occurred to me that he has two Best Actress wins from his films. (Plus, the winners are easily among m favorite working leading ladies.) Who was the last director to pull this off? (looks it up) Wow, James L. Brooks for MacLaine and Hunt. I'm not going to keep looking but I doubt few directors are on that list.
Ugh, *my and *doubt MANY directors
I think people are bound to hate those particular directors (and their movies) that get recognized by award bodies over stronger films produced that same year. Stephen Daldry is probably one of those: "The Reader" was recognized over "The Dark Knight" "Wall-E" and "The Wrestler."
I think Daldry's best continues to be "The Hours" (its strongest elements are so powerful that it's easy to overlook the film's flaws). I thought "The Reader" and "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" were formidable (nothing spectacular though) and "Billy Elliot" his weak link.
On the Meryl Streep note, I think she offered us even two stronger performances in "Adaptation" and "The Devil Wears Prada." But yes, those two along with "The Hours" make up her winning acting trifecta for the last decade.
@ cal: "Daldry has no theme, no style; he may make efficient movies, but who cares when they don't come from the heart?"
I don't understand your argument. Even if you were to argue that Daldry has no style and theme how does that lead-in to the fact that his films don't come from the heart?
Borzage is thought quite highly of now by autuerists.
This article brings my favorite director to mind. The incredible William Wyler. Wyler is also criticized for not being an "auteur", and yet he is the director with the most nominations in Oscar history: 12 nods. He won three times.
Additionally, he directed 36 -count 'em, 36!- Oscar-nominated performances. Fourteen of those were rewarded with the gold. More than double what any other director ever achieved!
Just like Meryl Streep, he was nominated for practically every film that he made. Consider this... A couple of his films were nominated for Best Picture and he was left out the the director race: Jezebel and Funny Girl. He might have easily been nominated 13 or 14 times!
Hey Nathaniel! He'd make an interesting choice for an article! ;)
William Wyler was the man.
I do believe Daldry is an auteur. Here's how:
(Sorry if I tend to ramble a bit here)
Billy Elliott is a coming of age tale about a child trying to break-free. Dancing, art seems to be his calling. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is about the same. Except here the child learns to deal with death and hence, grow up.
In The Reader, a young man experiences adulthood. Physical pleasure and art. Reading great texts is what makes him break free. That which a woman supplies to him. There is also the concept of judgment. That is his coming of age. (Even death is a major element here)
The woman as the artist is probably what The Hours is about as well. Virginia Woolf being the artist, the author of Mrs. Dalloway, arguably her masterpiece. Here also, there is the woman as "the reader" (Julianne Moore). Death again plays many roles here.
His use of music also is extremely striking and could be labeled auteuristic. The piano for instance. I could name several things about how Daldry is an exceptionally gifted filmmaker. Clearly, an auteur doesn't have to make his films "look" the same for him to be called one. It is about creative vision. What an artist is trying to say. Not about cinematographic exactness.
Obviously, what he is trying to do is make a certain kind of film. The elements of which happen to include casting brilliant actors and adapting from powerful source material. Sadly, this "kind" is looked down upon as Oscar bait.
I'm wandering what would people think about certain movies without knowing who made them.I have a feeling that some movies are highly regarded only because they were made by established auteurs and some are underrated because they were directed by hired professionals.it should be the work that comes first then the one who made it.but it is not always like that.
I absolutely don't think there's anything wrong with being a non-auteurist director but I don't think Stephen Daldry is an example of a good one.
What he does right in his films -- his work with actors -- absolutely gets devastated by what he brings to the table that doesn't work at all -- his handling of (high) emotions. And sometimes they almost entirely kill the effect of a performance: Meryl Streep in The Hours is a great example. She's solid and keyed in throughout most of the film up until her entirely false breakdown scene in the kitchen. The choices that are made in that scene feel like they're coming from another cinematic time entirely. It's bad opera with overwhelming waves of music. There are similar moments in some of his other films that I just feel the need to cringe because there's nothing supporting all that weight and it just falls right through and you're looking at a void in the film for the rest of the running time. Extremely Loud had them in spades and The Reader's refusal to take any judgement on anything makes for an empty movie, especially with a lead female character as complex -- it was almost offensive to conclude that the character's lack of humanity is redemptive by her new-found ability to read, as if nothing ever stuck with her in dealing with the world in general.
I don't feel the need to cut a director like Daldry some slack. He gets to work with some amazing talent exploring interesting stories and if he doesn't have it in him to pull it all off, he should step aside and let someone else handle the material.
What I will give him credit entirely for is his amazing use of wonderful character actors in very small but vital parts -- Toni Collette in The Hours and Lena Olin in The Reader immediately spring to mind. Those two were pure magic from start to finish.
I think most of the hate directed at Mr. Daldry is a symptom of "Oscar hate" the theory that it the Academy is offering its support to a film or filmmaker it must be bad. It's like a variation of being "too hip for the room" with film criticism. I agree that his bad rap it undeserved and that although he's my fav I do find myself defending him a lot for his handsomely made performance-based films that occasionally reach brilliance. I have the exact same feeling about Sydney Pollack but people don't tend to trash talk his work
Some people have said it right. It's easy to see why many hate him and don't see him as an auteur. Because his films are richly awarded (in nominations) at the Oscar and he has been 3 for 3 before Loud and Close. After that achievement, his films unfortunately will be stamped as Oscar baits unless he makes something like an action flick.
Doesn't matter if he's an auteur or not, one thing for sure is he knows how to get the best performance from his cast and he especially got some special gift with kid actors.
I read that his next full feature effort is an adaptation based on book called "Trash." It's about 3 kids who live in a trash site in a third world country. I've read the book and it's magical. The question is when this film comes out, will it be stamped as Oscar bait again?
Plus I give him applause for adapting novels like The Hours and Loud & Close.
I can't believe someone here said his works don't come from heart. That's just really an awful thing to say.