Worm's Eye View: Is Jody Hill Talented?
- By Mighty Worm
- Published 05/1/2009
Mighty Worm
In 1957, Mighty Worm tragically drowned at camp while counselors were inconsiderately having
sex. Or so everyone thought! Ambiguously undead, Worm vengefully
returned decades later and has been happily killing sexy idiots ever
since. He's fought Corey Feldman and Freddy Krueger and even gone into
space where he became part robot.
He hopes someday to fight Michael Meyers and a Predator.
The other night a friend and I got into an amazingly long and drawn-out debate with someone at a party over the movie Observe & Report. Initially the convo was simply about the general quality of the film - My friend and I think the film is amazing, this other guy thought it was merely okay.
From these humble beginnings the conversation quickly spiraled into being a debate about Jody Hill’s talent as a director, and then that spiraled into a more existential debate over what a director’s roll on a movie is.
This then spiraled into a weird conversation where we were comparing and contrasting John Woo and Kevin Smith, and the debate eventually became so tangented and bloated that it was crushed under its own weight and we were all forced to go our separates ways, no victory in hand for anyone.
The meat of the argument that’s still stuck in my teeth is the issue of what constitutes a talented director. To avoid this blog bloating and tangenting like our argument did, I’m going to stick to Jody Hill.
I think Jody Hill is very talented. The guy we were arguing with viewed him more as a writer who should pass the reigns of his movie off to a “real” director. Asked for another example, this guy threw out Judd Apatow. So you can see why this dude frustrated me.
This is Film School Think, pure and simple.
I hate the perception that a director has no "vision," or isn’t really contributing anything to a film, if he doesn’t have an overt visual style like Terry Gilliam. Now, I love Terry Gilliam, but this kind of attitude belies a total lack of understanding of what a director does/should do on a film.
A director is there to pull all the disparate elements hovering around him into a cohesive entity. He isn’t there to make the film “look awesome,” unless that’s his style. For the most part the look of a film is entirely up to the cinematographer. A director is trying to keep everyone on the same page, following the same vision.
This guy we were arguing with had never seen The Foot Fist Way or "Eastbound & Down," so I’ll forgive him for his statements that Hill has no discernible style. Cause he obviously does. I’ll also forgive him for not thinking Observe & Report is as funny as I do. No harm there. But I can’t tolerate claims that Hill has no idea what he’s doing, or has no cinematic sense.
Jody Hill is a punk rock director. His style is rough around the edges, but that is part of the overall tone and approach to his work. His films are about rough around the edges people. The Clash played rough around the edges music. Would anyone say they didn’t know what they were doing? Or shouldn’t have been playing their own instruments? I also think Hill will continue to grow as an artist, like any great director.
Jody Hill’s stuff isn’t for everyone. I certainly wouldn’t argue that anyone who doesn’t love his work is an idiot. Though I think anyone who can’t respect what he’s doing kind of is.
From these humble beginnings the conversation quickly spiraled into being a debate about Jody Hill’s talent as a director, and then that spiraled into a more existential debate over what a director’s roll on a movie is.
This then spiraled into a weird conversation where we were comparing and contrasting John Woo and Kevin Smith, and the debate eventually became so tangented and bloated that it was crushed under its own weight and we were all forced to go our separates ways, no victory in hand for anyone.
The meat of the argument that’s still stuck in my teeth is the issue of what constitutes a talented director. To avoid this blog bloating and tangenting like our argument did, I’m going to stick to Jody Hill.
I think Jody Hill is very talented. The guy we were arguing with viewed him more as a writer who should pass the reigns of his movie off to a “real” director. Asked for another example, this guy threw out Judd Apatow. So you can see why this dude frustrated me.
This is Film School Think, pure and simple.
I hate the perception that a director has no "vision," or isn’t really contributing anything to a film, if he doesn’t have an overt visual style like Terry Gilliam. Now, I love Terry Gilliam, but this kind of attitude belies a total lack of understanding of what a director does/should do on a film.
A director is there to pull all the disparate elements hovering around him into a cohesive entity. He isn’t there to make the film “look awesome,” unless that’s his style. For the most part the look of a film is entirely up to the cinematographer. A director is trying to keep everyone on the same page, following the same vision.
This guy we were arguing with had never seen The Foot Fist Way or "Eastbound & Down," so I’ll forgive him for his statements that Hill has no discernible style. Cause he obviously does. I’ll also forgive him for not thinking Observe & Report is as funny as I do. No harm there. But I can’t tolerate claims that Hill has no idea what he’s doing, or has no cinematic sense.
Jody Hill is a punk rock director. His style is rough around the edges, but that is part of the overall tone and approach to his work. His films are about rough around the edges people. The Clash played rough around the edges music. Would anyone say they didn’t know what they were doing? Or shouldn’t have been playing their own instruments? I also think Hill will continue to grow as an artist, like any great director.
Jody Hill’s stuff isn’t for everyone. I certainly wouldn’t argue that anyone who doesn’t love his work is an idiot. Though I think anyone who can’t respect what he’s doing kind of is.
