How to Study... the Leading Directors of American Cinema
If you're a regular viewer of Turner Classic Movies (TCM), then this is your chance to impress your professor and coursemates. And some might wish they haven't met you. This particular module in cinema will emphasize the works of Francis Ford Coppola, John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock, Elia Kazan, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Orson Welles, and William Wyler.
Before you disagree with the shortlist, let's elaborate on the description of this module. If you wish to study the films of Woody Allen, Frank Capra, and Billy Wilder, then go ahead. After all, they're the leading directors in comedy. How about Clint Eastwood? A fan of Westerns can discuss his filmography, along with "Unforgiven", while writing a paper on Ford. And it will be interesting to include Michael Cimino. (Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" and Cimino's "The Deerhunter" are about the Vietnam War.) You won't run out of ideas, as these filmmakers come from different periods. It's only right to compare, or contrast, their style.
If you're not a couch potato, then there's no need to worry. Any film enthusiast must be familiar with the works of these major directors. Here are some essay titles to expect:
The best Westerns are those that do not aspire to allegory. Do you agree? Ford, whom fans and critics consider as the greatest filmmaker in Westerns, often shot a straightforward story. "Stagecoach" (1939) relied on suspense, while a group of (stagecoach) passengers traveled through the Wild West. It was pure entertainment, but don't be misled. Everyone knew the danger, and how it would be exciting to come out of it in one piece. And Ford was aware of it. In fact, he didn't deviate from this approach in "The Searchers" (1956). Only the framed images of the breathtaking Texan desert would prompt some students to have second thoughts. But they agree.
To say that a film is a faithful reproduction of a novel is to damn it. Do you agree? Kubrick would agree on this one. He deviated from the novels he adapted to the big screen, only to imprint his vision into the story. And the authors wouldn't have a violent objection. The characters became larger than life, while the images turned into iconic moments in cinema. And these what make a great movie.
War films tend to be neither pro- nor anti-war. Their concern is simply to glorify the men fighting. Consider whether this applies to the war films you know best. The old studios were guilty of it. "The Great Escape" would be remembered for the cool demeanor of Steve McQueen, while "The Longest Day" featured brief appearances by upstarts like Sean Connery. Both films were based from actual events, and the real soldiers were far from the likes of McQueen and Connery. (McQueen wanted to be the hero, without doing anything heroic.) Perhaps producers were aware that there would be less viewers if the tone was more serious. Some would disagree, citing "The Bridge on River Kwai". But David Lean was a British filmmaker.
Do you find these titles too easy? Maybe an extensive knowledge of what you've seen in TCM might be the one for you. How about comparing and contrasting the satirical purposes and powers of at least two directors?
