Books like Making Movies

lumet's an interesting guy to think about if one decides to make a film -- the guy's made some of the best films of our time. but for me, lumet provides a cautionary tale of what not to become. 12 Angry MenDog Day AfternoonNetworkThe VerdictSerpicoBefore the Devil Knows You're Deadall good. and Network is great. and he's made about fifty bad movies including A Stranger Among Us, Guilty as Sin, the remake of Gloria, etc...lumet's obviously an intelligent guy with good taste (cites Carl Dreyer as his favorite director - nice) -- and he's an auteur: a thematic quality runs through his best work and he clearly chooses his material by a certain standard. but lumet is at the mercy of two things: (1) the time in which he lives and (2) his cinematographer. (it's also worth noting that he comes from television which is about as visually distinctive as high school yearbook photography) check it out:(1) why are his 70s movies better? why do his 90s movies suck? well, he was a younger man in the 70s than in the 90s and had more fire in his belly. of course. but he was also making films in american cinema's 2nd golden age - the spirit of the time dominated his films: gritty, tough films both thematically and visually; intense character studies about flawed people; obsessive and paranoid films as a response to nixon/watergate/vietnam.(2) lumet's great w/actors. for sure. his pacing is great, he knows how to construct a scene... but visually, is there a 'lumet style'? well - in making movies he states, for example, that the color blue never once appears in The Verdict (paul newman's eyes!) as he wanted the film to have an autumnal feel. ok. that's kinda cool. but, ultimately, is there anything visual to distinguish a sidney lumet film? naw, not really. and this is ok. same for howard hawks - for hawks it's all a 'code of masculinity' and saucy dames. he left the visuals to the camera guy. fuck that. i don't wanna be at the mercy of my cinematographer. greg toland (cinematographer of Citizen Kane) famously explained that orson welles was able to reinvent cinema with his first feature in that he didn't know the 'rules', he didn't understand the limitations -- he demanded shots from toland that hadn't been done before and refused to hear that they couldn't be done. but there's only one orson welles. the rest of us will believe our DP when s/he tells us that a shot cannot be done. the rest of us will allow our DP to construct a shot. fuck that. filmmakers rule #1 -- on set, know how to do everybody's job better than them. spielberg has kaminski, a visual fucking god, but every spielberg film looks like a spielberg film.in the early 90s francis ford coppola said that new technology would democratize cinema. a few years back james gray said that new technology hasn't done much in the way of the democratization of cienema in that 99.9% of 'homemade' movies suck. gray's right. you gotta know the technical stuff. lumet is a very good filmmaker. (and i thank him kindly for Before the Devil Knows You're Dead -- the naked marisa tomei scenes have provided invaluable masturbatory assistance). and making movies is a great read. but, for me, it's a cautionary tale. i might never make a film as good as network. shit, i hope i make one half as good. but fuck if i let my cinematographer or the time in which i live be the deciding factor of what my film looks like! be like a writer banging out the beats of his novel only to have someone else handle the prose!* this is in no way meant to disparage cinematographers. the great ones are every bit the genius as the great directors. and a great cinematographer matched with a great director (bergman/nykvist godard/coutard, coppola/willis) can create something transcendent. but i ain't a cinematographer. and in terms of my shit, i'm an insufferable egomaniac. and hopefully the tension b/t a tough-minded director and tough-minded cinematographer will make 'em both better than they could've been on their own.