Fulci or Argento?
-
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. -
torturechamberlain — 19 years ago(April 16, 2006 07:43 PM)
Dude, it's not a question of belief, but of opinion.
"Try to do 10% of what he did in Phenomena"
You mean, I should try recreating a portion of a movie I didn't even like? Yeah, I'll get right on that. -
romerorulz — 19 years ago(April 18, 2006 04:20 PM)
They are both really visionary directors. THey both have great films and both have VERY bad films (The bad films come towards the end of their careers). A lot of people look down on Fulci because he "only shows gore". Yes he has a lot of gore but he is also a great visual director. Argento's films seem more polished and Fulci's films seem more rough around the edges. I love both directors and I can't decide. I actually own more Fulci movies but a lot of them are bad like Demonia and Conquest. Both directors get thumbs up in my book and they are both on my top 5 favorite directors list.
-
christianjlarocca — 17 years ago(October 06, 2008 05:02 PM)
New York Ripper is a bleak and relentless film. It's also a pretty entertaining giallo-meets-slasher story with some horrifying scenes. It's been beat up a lot by fans and detractors, alike, but I rank it among the best Fulci films (and yes, I've seen them all!)
-
jrandazzofilms-1 — 19 years ago(May 28, 2006 12:11 AM)
Better than 99% of American horror directors? You must5b4 mean Argento, because as much as I love Fulci's work, he will NEVER touch John Carpenter or George Romero.
They are both Italian directors who make gory movies but that is where the similarities end. Argento is brilliant, Fulci makes some cool gore films but they can never compare to Argento.