Patchy career…
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Blake Edwards
maritze — 16 years ago(April 29, 2009 04:53 AM)
I re-watched some Edwards movies lately. I must say his success as a director frankly baffles me. Admittedly he had made a couple of decent films like Tiffanys though I find it pretty average myself. But there is the original Pink Panther and a Shot in the Dark (my favorite Edwards/Sellers pairing), 10.
But really, most of his film sucks eggs! They are almost all unimaginatively shot, badly staged, with such sloppy direction youd think he was not even on set and quite honestly, flatly boring. The Panther movies from strikes again onwards is just awful to the point of being unwatchable. And the rest of his output is so patchy it defies believe that he has managed to sustain a career for so many years. An enigma if ever I saw onea career for so many years. An enigma if ever I saw one
So, my point is that if anybody complains about Steve Martin taking over the Sellers role, I suggest they watch a few old Panther films again to remind them that even the original; films where pretty bloody horrible anyway. -
freudified_n_funkified — 16 years ago(April 30, 2009 07:32 PM)
One can't hold the new Martin-Panther films up against A Shot in the Dark and say the differences are negligible. A Shot in the Dark (and to a lesser extent, the original Pink Panther) has some of the most well staged and timed sequences in 60s comedy, and Sellers is in total control of himself as Clouseau, performing with a fine comic nuance. The new films man, talk about unimaginatively shot and stagnantly staged are completely flat and uninventive. And Martin (who I'm usually a big fan of) is horrible and grating in his caricature.
And while I agree that Edwards' output was scattershot - when he was good, he was good. A Shot in the Dark, Victor/Victoria, SOB, The Party, Experiment in Terror, What Did You Do in the War Daddy, Days of Wine and Roses he had a gift for farce and for suspense (which I guess both boil down to timing) that when properly channeled was excellent.
I happen to be a fan of more divisive Edwards pictures like The Great Race and Skin Deep, and think his transitions into a handful of more personal pictures in the 80s has held up the second half of his filmography quite well. When he lost touch (Darling Lili), rode trends (Wild Rovers), cashed in (post-Sellers Panther) or got lost (A Fine Mess) he was useless as a company man and barely workmanlike. But when he fostered a project that was more his speed, like the aforementioned films I've praised, he executed gags that worked, created characters that have aged well and in some cases become icons, went a way to capturing and defining an iconoclastic if not entirely accurate filmic swinging 1960s, and later nailed a more realistic essence of the 80s - always working farce and classic comedy stylings into contemporary molds and various genres. In my opinion, he did it all with a great deal of panache. While his camerawork was never overly stylized or groundbreaking - the design and assembly, of his best films from top to bottom, was fantastic and artful.
Patchy overall, okay, but in many ways the breadth of Edwards' career leaves him as one of the strongest running links between old Hollywood and the contemporary entertainment industry. He worked through four decades of moviemaking, transitioning successfully through all the phases of the business as he went. And even though the quality of his output was inconsistent, his body of work as a whole is an interesting study in major studio trends given how long he worked in popular American cinema. So I truly think there's an academic value in Blake Edwards, since the majority of his fb68ilms are such singular products of their era, for good or bad. But most rewarding for me is the entertainment value his good films still have, forty years on in some cases. I don't know if I could ever muster it up to call him an artist the way one might say Jacques Tati or John Cassavetes was an artist, but I think he's a solid talent, an entertainer who made some interesting contributions to his art, and is underrated in most circles. -
maritze — 16 years ago(May 04, 2009 07:26 AM)
Thanks, that's a well thought out post (a pretty scarce thing here on IMDB.)
I agree with you A Shot in the Dark is comic genius and -really- should not be compared to the new Panther movies or even to old ones, for that matter. My original post was more intended to compare the rest of the Edwards Panther films with the new ones. The bulk of the Panther movies Sellers made with Edwards is so cringe worthy and un-funny that I felt I hb68ad to apologize to my wife for buying the box set. (She uncomplainingly sat through the whole lot of them with me by the way.)
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that, but I just don't see the care of the art and craft of direction in his films that one would expect from a director of his years of service. He seems to have had a careless and almost flippant disregard for the craft of filmmaking and -really- for his audience. So, Ill have to stick to my first post. I believe Edwards is HUGELY overrated. A clever producer? Yes. A survivor? Yes. A very lucky guy? Certainly. A good , or even fair Director No. -
freudified_n_funkified — 16 years ago(May 04, 2009 06:52 PM)
Of course everyone's entitled to their opinions, but I'll just add one thing5b4. I know you mentioned Breakfast at Tiffany's (not one of my favorite Edwards movies - my wife's favorite, though) and 10 (which I like) but if you're basing the bulk of your opinion on the Panther series I can see where you're coming from. The technical and passionless decline in that series seems to match Edwards' contempt for having to return to that well time and again. I seriously doubt it was a rewarding process treading the same ground for a fifth time, etc, and what must have been some serious creative fatigue definitely shows.
I personally don't think it's symptomatic of any kind of overall career slump, as he turned out some of his best movies simultaneous to the last clunking Panther installments. I agree that in those post-Sellers franchise films your critique of him is valid and apt, and those efforts are deservedly reviled, but like I said - when he was on his game and doing things for himself rather than the studio, he was solid. Just check out some of the user reviews here for SOB, Victor/Victoria and The Party people don't treat or regard the movies like art, but as great, old school entertainment.
I'd put him in the same line with, and more often above, peers like George Roy Hill, Herbert Ross, Tony Richardson, Stanley Donen, Arthur Hiller - that bracket of occasionally inspired cross-genre company men - but he probably wanted to be Billy Wilder meets Bob Fosse, with some Hitchcock thrown in. Had111c he been more selective in his projects he might have pulled that off, but Edwards' fatal flaw is often in his imitation - of others and, ultimately, of himself. Those Pink Panther movies are a curse, though - it's a shame that the material he's most remembered for and judged by is such a mixed bag. -
Goodbye_Ruby_Tuesday — 15 years ago(May 25, 2010 12:51 AM)
I too find the popularity of Blake Edwards films baffling; I don't find
The Pink Panther
very funny, I don't find
Breakfast at Tiffany's
romantic, and despite my initial praise for
Days of Wine and Roses
and the acting in particular, the film becomes considerably more manipulative with each viewing I see of itor maybe it's always been manipulative and I only notice the strings more with each viewing.
The mandoes not know the concept of subtlety. Every film has at least one loud, over-the-top performance, as though Edwards had become mute and forgot to yell "Cut!" I don't think he knows how to trust his audience, or maybe even himself given his lack of control over his films.
Perhaps the overwhelming popularity of
Breakfast at Tiffany's
is the most quizzical. Audrey Hepburn may be the cleanest prostitute until Julia Roberts came along. She's been forever linked to this role, but I really don't get why other than the fact that she can wear a Givenchey gown for all it's worth. Was it because she made having champagne for breakfast and shoplifting look chic? Was it because in the end she was just a girl who couldn't tell the difference between love and a prison cell? She'd been more naturally charming in other films like
Roman Holiday
and she'd been more real and flawed in
Two for the Road
, both far better filmsso why do fans drool over this? One problem may be the change of the source material of Truman Capote's novella, which wasn't Edith Wharton by any means but it was more interesting that the traditional love story that ended up on screen. In Capote's version, Holly is a bit more unhinged, a lot more bisexual, and she never hooks up with "Paul," the probably gay narrator. This edgier, darker version would not be something believable for Audrey Hepburn (the original choice of Marilyn Monroe would've been able to produce some of this darkness while preserving the lightneb68ss). I honestly never really cared for where the film went because frankly there was very little plot in the movie, and despite my Acchilles' Heel for people who have no idea what they're worth and the final taxi scene ("I don't want to put you in a cage, I want to love you!"), I never even cared for the love story because I didn't see much chemistry between Peppard and Hepburn. The movie was never very funny because frankly Edwards thinks broader is better, case in point the "TIMBER!" scene. When a woman falls to the ground unconscious, you help her up and make sure she doesn't land in a coma from a concussion.
And I won't even bother to mention Mickey Rooney; the nicest, briefest thing I'll say is that he gave the worst performance in cinema history.
I want the finality of love