You are entitled to your opinion, but, you know what? I didn't know him until recently despite watching many of his films. I'm pretty sure that outside of a film school, few people would be able to name him as director of Casablanca
This is a strange analysis. Yes, there are directors that tend to specialise in certain types of film and sometimes have distinction styles. This is either because they are very good in some aspects of filmmaking, or should I say, better at some things than others - say better at visual design rather than working with actors - or vice versa - OR they prefer to work in certain genres and certain themes. This comes about through the independent mode of film production we now have. But in the old days of Hollywood, directors were under contract to the studios and were simply assigned to a picture. That meant they had to be versatile. Curtiz was a very reliable director who could do a rip-roaring pirate saga, a medieval romance, and then switch to a wartime romance or a period musical. He wasn't limited to any particular style- he adopted the style that suited the picture and did it well. He directed over 120 films in America after doing about 50 in Hungary, so he was pretty diverse.
Perhaps I should have used more of a contemporary to Curtiz like John Ford, who was also working within the studio system. I think it's pretty easy to imagine a John Ford film. But, because of Curtiz's ability to direct just about any and every genre, it's pretty hard to imagine what a Michael Curtiz film would be like. Even someone like Howard Hawks who was also very diverse, you could argue that all his films had his DNA. This is nothing against him as a director, but my argument is that because of his difficulty to pigeonhole, he is hard to market to the public, therefore, the public are less likely to associate his name with his films, unlike a John Ford or a Howard Hawks.
It was one of the films originally intended for James Dean, and Elvis based his performance on Dean’s in Rebel Without a Cause. I talked about it in my James Dean video: ruclips.net/video/eG7b9WPUDVw/видео.html
I’m kind of on the same track, except that I called Curtiz a journeyman vs. the “Auteur” who would often remake the same film over and over such as Hitchcock. This made them easier to market.
Michael Curtiz, and he is remembered. As a director of great films. Taika Waititi will be remembered as the overrated hack who helped wreck Marvel Films. Waititi HOPES nobody will remember him.
I bet if you did a poll of 100 random people, most could identify Hitchcock as the director of Psycho. But, I doubt more than one or two would know that Michael Curtiz directed "Casablanca" or any number of the classic films he directed.
He also directed "Yankee Doodle Dandy" that same year and later directed the all time Christmas Classic "White Christmas."
Indeed, I talked a bit about them in the section on his musicals. Absolutely wonderful films.
Who the hell doesn't know who Michael Curtiz was?
You are entitled to your opinion, but, you know what? I didn't know him until recently despite watching many of his films. I'm pretty sure that outside of a film school, few people would be able to name him as director of Casablanca
This is a strange analysis. Yes, there are directors that tend to specialise in certain types of film and sometimes have distinction styles. This is either because they are very good in some aspects of filmmaking, or should I say, better at some things than others - say better at visual design rather than working with actors - or vice versa - OR they prefer to work in certain genres and certain themes. This comes about through the independent mode of film production we now have. But in the old days of Hollywood, directors were under contract to the studios and were simply assigned to a picture. That meant they had to be versatile. Curtiz was a very reliable director who could do a rip-roaring pirate saga, a medieval romance, and then switch to a wartime romance or a period musical. He wasn't limited to any particular style- he adopted the style that suited the picture and did it well. He directed over 120 films in America after doing about 50 in Hungary, so he was pretty diverse.
Perhaps I should have used more of a contemporary to Curtiz like John Ford, who was also working within the studio system. I think it's pretty easy to imagine a John Ford film. But, because of Curtiz's ability to direct just about any and every genre, it's pretty hard to imagine what a Michael Curtiz film would be like. Even someone like Howard Hawks who was also very diverse, you could argue that all his films had his DNA. This is nothing against him as a director, but my argument is that because of his difficulty to pigeonhole, he is hard to market to the public, therefore, the public are less likely to associate his name with his films, unlike a John Ford or a Howard Hawks.
I remember Michael Curtiz...he directed one of Elvis' only really good movies, 'King Creole'.
It was one of the films originally intended for James Dean, and Elvis based his performance on Dean’s in Rebel Without a Cause. I talked about it in my James Dean video: ruclips.net/video/eG7b9WPUDVw/видео.html
Please check out my poll in the community tab: ruclips.net/user/postUgkxiBOR16HU7PqCQUyte9e7LKByAAxmc_Ch
The generation that started talking about directors as artists regarded him as a non-auteur director - a skilled hack basically.
Pretentious boobs.
A non-auteur director, certainly, but "a skilled hack"? No. A skilled craftsman. Casablanca is a masterclass of direction.
@@ianwilliams6042 fair enough
I’m kind of on the same track, except that I called Curtiz a journeyman vs. the “Auteur” who would often remake the same film over and over such as Hitchcock. This made them easier to market.
Hack is such a derogatory term, but I think you kind of have to be a hack in order to get your 10,000 hours to become a master craftsman.
Michael Curtiz, and he is remembered. As a director of great films.
Taika Waititi will be remembered as the overrated hack who helped wreck Marvel Films.
Waititi HOPES nobody will remember him.
I bet if you did a poll of 100 random people, most could identify Hitchcock as the director of Psycho. But, I doubt more than one or two would know that Michael Curtiz directed "Casablanca" or any number of the classic films he directed.