It’s an interesting and thoughtful essay. I don’t agree with the author’s assertion that the uneven quality of Scott’s work demonstrates some kind of flaw (though TBF, this assertion serves as a great launching pad for an exploration of his background and career).
I see that “flaw” as evidence of a willingness to take risk, something shared by other greats of the “big canvas” films (Kurosawa and Kubrick): an unrepentantly uneven oeuvre. You also see it in another master, Hitchcock: his framing was typically smaller, his work mixed, but when good, very good. Compare that to, say, Spielberg: excellent workmanship but never quite the risk taker. As a result you get results that are quite good but never sublime. In that sense more Greene than Scott is, despite the author’s assertion.
I think this is true of all the greats: we only have seven of Sophocles’ 100+ plays, but I console myself that they are surely seven of the best. And IMHO Shakespeare had his clunkers.
I share your conclusion that great artists should strive for taking risks and leave uneven ouvre behind them. But are Kubrick and Kurosawa good examples of uneven directors? It’s hard to measure and maybe their legend status muddles the ratings but casually glancing even their bad films are quite highly rated and this matches my feeling of them.
I feel Scotts work is way more all over the place and the great films in there feel more like the outliers. It’s all very subjective though and I have not seen everything these people have made.
Barry Lyndon is amazing! The magical quality of the lighting, the music, lady Lyndon's expression at the end. Probably one of my all time favorite films.
Terrible choice of novel too. Long and boring in print — I suppose one could say the film was faithful to the source material in that regard. Thackeray would have been a far better choice to cover the same issue.
Ran is not only highly regarded in Kurosawa's output, it regularly pops up on lists of greatest films of all time.
When people speak of Kurosawa's weaker films, they generally mean Dodeskaden and Scandal, and then perhaps lesser-known efforts like The Quiet Duel and Derzu Uzala.
I'm pretty surprised to see Scott mixed in with these folks. I love me some Alien, but his other works have a noticeably looser quality and shallow worldviews. As a director or to a lesser extent as a producer I suppose I tepidly agree with his mastery, but he's more of a Michael Bay than he is a Kubrick as a filmmaker overall: he makes puerile but engaging blockbusters.
I see that “flaw” as evidence of a willingness to take risk, something shared by other greats of the “big canvas” films (Kurosawa and Kubrick): an unrepentantly uneven oeuvre. You also see it in another master, Hitchcock: his framing was typically smaller, his work mixed, but when good, very good. Compare that to, say, Spielberg: excellent workmanship but never quite the risk taker. As a result you get results that are quite good but never sublime. In that sense more Greene than Scott is, despite the author’s assertion.
I think this is true of all the greats: we only have seven of Sophocles’ 100+ plays, but I console myself that they are surely seven of the best. And IMHO Shakespeare had his clunkers.