Fulci or Argento?
-
carry-on-man — 21 years ago(December 14, 2004 12:10 PM)
Are you saying you want a list of the genres Fulci covered before hitting on gore? Check his filmography and I think you will find my argument does actually hold some water, Fulci is a great horror/gore director but Argento is the clear winner because he shows far more integrity in his work. So what if his family backed him, is that his fault? Lets not forget that Argento also co-wrote "Once Upon A Time In The West" before becoming a director, and that is a classic of its genre if not movies in general! This kind of proves that he could have made it whatever genre he felt most inspired to work in, the same cannot be said of Fulci!!
Lets not get carried away here, Fulci's good movies are awesome, far better than almost any other movie in th7ece horror genre. Its just that he never tops Argento in any way, shape or form. On the other hand I don't think Argento could have directed "The Beyond" anywhere near as well as Fulci. We shall just have to agree to disagree on the point, after all its all down to personnel interpretation and I admire your point of view to the point of almost agreeing with you, but NO! Argento is better than Fulci, sorry. -
NerdofHorror — 21 years ago(December 15, 2004 09:16 AM)
What do you mean hitting on gore? He only did so because he had to. It was in Zombie Flesheaters he first started to use a lot of that stuff, and the only reason why he took that job wasn't because he wanted to start a career or something in making gory horrofilms. Fulci took that job because he went trough a lot of personal problems in his life, and he was in desperate need og money.
Actually, Fulci made a lot of succesfull films before Zombie. Lizard in a Woman's Skin beeing the most profitable he made before Zombie. A film which also was one of his biggest successes. How do you know that Fulci didn't have any success before Zombie?
By the way, have you seen any of his earlier works before the Zombie-era?
Lack of integrity?! How can you say such a thing?! If there is anyone out there who made films with integrity and with independent toughts, thats Fulci my friend. He always had substance in his mind while making his films - an element i've never seen in any Argento-movie. And why? Because Argento presents his films so overwhelming visual, that is leaves little to nothing for substance - the elements that's one of the most important things in cinema. Substance mye friend, substance!
The last thing you're saying here about Argento and Once upon a is just a downright lie. Fulci went through so many many more generes than Argento did and ever will. This proves that Fulci was the one that made it making all types of films. All from drama/horror/thriller/giallo/fantasy/adventure/comedy/crime/western/action/sci-fi
Just because Argento co-wrote a western (Fulci wrote and directed three, also produced one and co-directed one), dosent mean he can manage every genre like Fulci did.
Fulci tops Argento in so many ways (all respects for Dario of course). Fulci's visions, expressions, substance and craftmanship makes him the better. The best director isn't necessarily the one that manages to make the best cameramovements or create the best visual work, but it's the director who's love for the cinema is reflected through the subtance of his/her's films. To say that Argento is a better director than Fulci is therefore wrong. If Fulci have had the same resources and budgets that Argento had, he would have proved himself for the whole world what a great director he was. Lucio Fulci started working with films before Argento was even in his puberty. To say that Argento is better than Fulci on every level i find therefore as a huge insult and lack of integrity and respect for Lucio.
You might find Argento's films, all in all, better than Fulci's (although it dosen't seem like you've seen too many of them), but to call Argento a better director on every leves is just plain wrong. -
carry-on-man — 21 years ago(December 15, 2004 01:11 PM)
By "hitting on gore" I mean "Fulci found international recognition because he made very gory movies at a time when it was the fashion to do so".
So he had problems, so what. His early movies of note are Lizard in a Woman's Skin,Don't Torture Donald Duck,They Died with Their Boots On etc and yes I have actually seen some of them, are no match for his later films (with the exception of Lizard in a Woman's Skin). And when you consider that his later films are not as good as Argento's then why bring the old ones into the argument? All his early films were more "bandwagon" than artistic intergrity anyway.
What is this "substance" you keep bringing up?2000 The wooden acting? The sketchy plot lines? Come on, you have to admit that Argento movies have buckets of substance, not that they are without wooden acting or sketchy plots,mind, but if you are a fan of Fulci/Argento you overlook these things. When it comes down to it Fulci is just as guilty of staging huge murder/gore scenes for dramatic effect as Argento, and I feel his camera angles are just as innovative as alot of Argento's.
Now hang on a minute, are you saying that Argento never co-wrote Once Upon A Time In The West with Bernardo Bertolucci? Or are you suggesting that Fulci's westerns are equal to Sergio Leone's? It is without doubt that Leone's westerns are the greatest ever made and Argento must take some of the credit for this for his excellent screenplay in Once Upon Fulci's westerns are nowhere near Leone's, and I think if Argento had gone into westerns he would have made better ones than Fulci.
I had no intention of insulting the memory of Fulci. Zombie Flesh Eaters and The Beyond are two of the greatest horrors ever made, and the eye impaling scene in Zombie Flesh Eaters is without doubt one of my favourite movie moments in ANY genre!! It probably betters all of Argento's set pieces, but then we are back to my point "without the gore Fulci would not be held in such high esteem".
I like, no LOVE both directors for their outstanding contribution to the horror genre, but I feel history will prove me right by giving Argento the better write up.
If this was a vote between the two it would be Fulci 45% Argento 55%. I wish more peolple would come on here so we can get a more balanced view!! -
NerdofHorror — 21 years ago(December 16, 2004 12:40 AM)
No match for his later films eyh? How manye of his pre-Zombie films have you seen? How can you even call his films more "bandwagons" (whatever that means) instead of artistic integrity? One example; Don't Torture a Duckling. By far a masterpiece of the giallo-genre, and probably the best giallo ever made. Why? Because the film express so much more than just an average giallo. It's here the word subtance comes to mind - where the director express more than what the images shows. He want's to tell something, express something. Duckling is a film about something more than just a giallo. It's a harsh critisising film towards the catholic church and the stereotpye villains that lives on the contryside that, instead confiding themselves to the law, takes the law into their own hands and kills an innocent woman in a repulsive matter. It's a reason why bith the film and the director was blacklisted for over two years after the release of the film. No wonder Fulci didn't recive recognition at that time. The film has won awards and it has even been acclaimed by the critics. Subtance has nothing to do with corny acting or the so-called sketcy plot-lines, but it's about what the director want's to express, what he/her want's to tell the viewer from an artistic point of view. Fulci did this so manye time, and he too often got ignored and overlooked for this. Don't torture a Duckling is a film Argento never could have directed as well as Fulci because the film is about something more than just a giallo. While Argento's giallos are just plain giallos with little to nothing to express.
I've never had the same impression about Dario though. Can you tell me the substance of any of his films?
A lot of people out there also consider Fulci's earlier films to be his best. That's a downright fact.
Off course i'm not denying that Argento wrote Once upon a time in the West (how did you come to that conclusion?). My point earlier was that Fulci made films, good films, of so many more genres than Argento did and ever will. Even in westerns. I have not seen Once Upon a Time in the West yet, but i have seen Leone's extremly overrated Dollar.trilogy, and i can with saftey say that Fulci's westerns are much, much better than his. By the way, which of Fulci's westerns have you seen?
"without the gore Fulci would not be held in such high esteem."
As long as people ignore substance and always jugde Fulci by the ammount of gore in his films this might unfortunatley be true. As a director, Fulci was the best. It's like they say; The critics have never understood it, and the critics never will. -
carry-on-man — 21 years ago(December 16, 2004 12:47 PM)
OK, so we are NEVER gonna agree on this subject! For the record I have seen about ten Fulci movies (both pre and post Zombie) and about the same amount of Argento movies (well, perhaps more) and I cannot see you point. I was giving respect to your argument, but your latest statement about Fulci westerns being better than Leone's (and the fact that you called the Dollars Trilogy "overated") is giving me grave doubts about your judgement of films, surely you are not serious. Do you realy expect people to believe ANY Fulci western is on a par with The Good, The Bad and The Ugly? That is such a mind-boggling statement!
"Bandwagon" let me explain. Westerns are popular-Fulci makes Desperate Men. Giallo is popular-Fulci makes Don't Torture the Duckling,Dawn of The Dead is popular-Fulci makes Zombie Flesh Eaters,Gory slashers are popular-Fulci makes The New York Ripper,sword and sorcery is popular-Fulci makes Conquest. This is the tip of the iceberg. Fulci is an incredibly talented director, its just that he never actually led the field in any genre. Its a shame, and you are probably right that his personel life may have held him back, but that is no excuse for making him a better director than Argento.
As for substance Argento and Fulci are very similar, Tenebrae challenges catholicism, but you have to look beyond the gore to spot it. Neither director is that hot on substance, we are not looking at anything in their movies that rivals a director such as Woody Allen for intellectual substance, although you will probably have some reason to deny this (I am looking forward to hearing it!)
Anyway, the argument is over for me. You obviously prefer Fulci to any other director, and I don't deny you this. I prefer Argento, but so what. Its all down to personal opinion, and we could argue the toss forever, but its over for me. Your turn, if yo5b4u can be bothered. -
NerdofHorror — 21 years ago(December 16, 2004 01:38 PM)
Again: Which Fulci-westerns have you seen? Also, Fulci only co-directed Desperate Men. Yes, i do think the Dollar-trilogy is overrated. The first one isn't even well crafted.
Four of the Apocalypse, one of Fulci's finest films, makes every single little Dollar-film look lake a cent. But that's just my opinion.
Before i go into the bandwagon-thing, i have to make something clear; Zombie Flesheaters was NOT made because of Dawn of the Dead. The script for Zombie was written a long time before Dawn of the Dead was even released. Even the shooting started before Dawn of the Dead was released.
Giallo is popular and Dario makes a bunch of them, witchcraft is popular and Dario makes Suspiria and Inferno, remakes is popular and Argento makes Phantom of the Opera, western is popular and Argento co-directs a couple of them, comedy is popular so Argento makes The Five Days of Milan. You can say the same thing about him, so why use that as an argument against Fulci?
And by the way, 2 out of the 3 westerns Fulci made was made at the very peak of the spaghetti western-genre because it WASN'T popular anymore at that point.
Tenebre challenges catolicism?! Please explain!
Fulci was always hot on substance, but i don't really expect you to understand what he wanted to express with his cinema. S very few does today, unfortunatley. And why? I'm not sure. People today have problems taking cinema seriously - especially coming froma low-budget italian director.
You're calling Argento a better director than Fulci even though you've only seen 10 of his over 60 (including the documentaries he made in the late 40's and early 50's) films. -
carry-on-man — 21 years ago(December 16, 2004 03:17 PM)
Yeah, whatever. Fulci better at westerns than Leone, complete and utter crap! No point arguing, check any movie site to see why L1c84eone is rated so highly.
Zombie Flesh Eaters would have never been made if it wasn't for the success of Dawn Of The Dead, I love Flesh Eaters anyway so I couldn't give a flying beep about your argument.
Fulci made 60 or so films, but only 5 or 6 of them are any good. The same goes for Argento but so what, I love both of these directors and there good films.
If you are a "NerdofHorror" I don't know how you even saw all those none horror/giallo Fulci movies, unless you are Italian or something. They are not widely available in the UK.
The main character in Tenebrae had a strict Catholic upbringing, and as such reacted against it. Why don't you try watching it again, you might pick up on this, you are after all into "substance" in films.
I have seen Four from the Apocalypse and it is VERY amateur in comparison to Leone's masterfull westerns. Get a grip man, I like Fulci films and have watched enough of them to know how he works, I think Argento is better - end of story!
(for god's sake will someone else post a point of view!) -
NerdofHorror — 21 years ago(December 17, 2004 03:11 AM)
Wow! Talk about ignoring the facts!
You think 5 or 6 of his films are good. Ok, so you also think the other 50 films you haven't seen of him is bad?
I haven't seen all of Fulci's films yet, but i have seen a handful of his early comedies and i enjoyed them. I live in Norway, and belive me; Fulci-titles are incredibly scarce her in Norway. There practicly isn't any. The Fulci-films i've found i've used several years to track down over the internet. To find theese on original VHS-releases has not been easy i promise you. I've found many of them on bootleg, but being a principal man, i only buy originals.
Even though they're not avaliable in the UK, dosen't mean they're not avaliable.
If Tenebre challenges catolisism, Argento certinly don't show it good enough. In Duckling, Fulci actually shows the acts of the curch and he does it in a much more powerfull way.
And the fact that you're ignoring the whole Zombie Flesheaters-thing really speaks for itself.
Well, well. Different opinions is always a good thing, i guess -
Radish4ever — 20 years ago(April 17, 2005 10:45 PM)
Both wrote and directed and made different type of films despite being classed as horror directors. Try compairing there best films. Suspiria is one of a kind but then again it has to be said so is the Beyond. It comes down to a match between these two great films. Both are scary, have a great score and are unmatched.. Even Dawn of the Dead is not as good as the beyond. I really cant split them. Its a Tie and I will stay sat on the fence.
-
mallaard — 20 years ago(August 04, 2005 05:39 PM)
I probably haven't seen enough of either director's films to make an entirely fair judgement, but one thing I'd like to discuss is Argento's style. I am absolutely in love with Argento's style of filmmaking, but I'll very rarely defend his integrity in storytelling. For one, he never seems to find good actors, which is the first thing any good director/producer should try and do. Occasionally he'll find someone worthwhile like Max von Sydow, but in general I find it incredibly difficult to defend the quality of acting (in either dub or original) for his movies. But that's not what I like about his films. It's his fiercely powerful visual sense, his use of camera positioning and motion. Also, something that so many people want to ignore, is his use of music. I've NEVER seen such a successful combination of dramatic build-up between visual and musical tension as in scenes from movies like Suspiria, Inferno, Deep Red, or Sleepless. Argento clearly lets things like reason and story progression go in favor of creating an almost surreal watching experience (something I can appreciate, being also a fan of Jodorowsky and Bunuel). I only wish he would make a full-blown surrealist/horror film, rather than trying to wrangle it all into a more or less sensible ending. This is why I generally prefer the Three Mothers films over his giallo, although I like those too.
Fulci, on the other hand, produces more traditionally written films that clearly establish and build upon a (more) linear series of events, which helps make his movies more exciting in a familiar, action-oriented way, even though he too creates some pretty surreal and dizzyingly over-the-top scenes. Frankly, I've always wanted to see elements of both styles integrated into one uber-film. Fulci's mastery of gore effects and sense for action and storytelling combined with Argento's gorgeous scenery, camera-work, and music would make me one happy boy indeed. Hell if I know what the story would be, but it would probably involve lots of mentally off-kilter men and/or a healthy dose of occultism.
I think Argento could produce some really nice work that could transcend genre filmmaking if he were to resign himself to being director of photography for a more well-balanced director/autuer (in the way Barry Sonnenfeld used to work for the Coen brothers, for instance), but that's just something I'd like to see, and many would probably disagree with that one.
But in short, I love both men's films, so you'll not find much bias in me for either one. -
NerdofHorror — 20 years ago(August 11, 2005 12:53 AM)
Well, it's really not a question of finding good actors for his films. No matter how one can look at it, dubbing is a serious matter which really can destroy good acting. Finding an actor that still managed to act good, even though he/her don't dub himself/herself (like Klaus Kinski or Tomas Milian), is only one in a life-time chance.
Good actors dosen't have anything to do with the integrity of storytelling. Especially not under the circumstances italian cinema was in at the time (even though it didn't inflict Argento as much as most others).
I highly disagree that people are ignoring Argento's use of music. It's one of the things most people recognize about his films, from all i've read and heard. However, i do disagree with you a little bit about the use of music itself. Argento, especially in Suspiria and Deep Red, often use unsiutable music for certain scenes. It happend quite often in Suspiria. Don't get me wrong, i love the music and it suits the film perfectly. it's just the use of it i slightly disagree with.
It certainly would have been exciting to have seen the two of them working together combining their style, with Fulci as a director. It almost happend with Wax Mask, but tragedy unfortunatly does happend.
http://tveiten.blogspot.com -
torturechamberlain — 20 years ago(March 29, 2006 03:54 AM)
Well, I've only seen very few movies from both directors, so I'll judge from that. Opinion subject to change.
Fulci- First I saw was Zombie Flesh Eaters. By far my favorite zombie movie, after Night of the Living Dead. Acting was of course quite horrible but I have a strong distaste for dubbing and as already mentioned, there are precious few actors that can even partially recreate the intensity of their original performance in the studio. Kinski being one of the few and the only one that springs to mind right now. Okay, back to ZFE- The gore was impeccable. I like how Fulci throws these totally odd little bits into his movies that aren't conventionally scary- just weird. Like the worms all over the cabin, the zombie fighting the shark etc. Of course kudos has to go to the eye scene. Wow.
House by the Cemetary- Amazing film. Again, the acting is a problem, but apart from that this movie rules. The plot is completely ludicrius and has a totally beep up internal logic that plays like a nightmare. Love it.
Argento- First I saw was Phenomena which did nothing for me. A film with a girl who can communicate with bugs and a razor-wielding chimp should at least be entertaining in a beep up sorta way but it isn't. In some way, Argentos hyper-controlled visual, if frenetic, universe takes the strangely compelling out of these otherwise original elements and turns them into craftmanship instead of the twisted art for wierdoes that figures in Fulcis movies.
The Stendhal Syndrom- Off to a good start with the girl kissing the fish (deliciously bizarre) this field simply took a nosedive into beep and set up residency there. Overlong although at least Asia is quite the looker.
Suspiria- "Oh, come on. You can't possible rag on Suspiria as well?" Yes, I bloody well can! Probably the most overrated horror movie ever, which of course is not to say it's bad. So to clear things up, I'll say it now: It's bad. In fact, I think it sucks. There, I said it. Let raging hordes of pimply faced virgins and chubby, lonely horrormongers wield their wrath upon me. I honestly don't give a flying mother beep The Music: Not that it's really any worse than other horror movie music, but it's certainly not that much better and it's so horribly overused. The only suspense it generates is when I'm waiting for those triggered doublepedal bassdrums and the distorted guitar to kick in and play me some black metal. Sadly, it never happens. And people seem to praise it to the skies every chance they get. Acting? Horrible, although the italian version is considerably more bearable then the english. The mindnumbingly stupid characters (the locked-in-the-room-jumping-into-barbwire scene, for instance). The awful dialogue. The beep zooms (wtf do we need to see a shot of her mouth for in that scene in the bathroom where the gals are talking about the blind guy dying?). The well, almost everything. Alot of his visuals would be interesting if he either didn't overdo em or if he had had the stones to go completely all out beep with it.
Seing Argentos films has me feeling like I'm walking around in another man's headache. Seing a Fulci film makes me feel like being in another man's nightmare.
Oh, and another thing. Me not being too crazy about chrisianity, has Fulci winning over Argento as well. I have a hard time swallowing the witches beep in Argento films. For those not in the know, witches (as in evil speelcasting women out to cause death and misery) were invented by christians as an excuse to burn innocent people for whatever reasons. So making a horror movies in all seriousness with witches as the culprits is about as messed up as making a horror movie with a money grubbing, child eating, well poisening jew as the baddie. "It's just a damn movie" you might say, and s7eco it is. And this is just a damn rant.