FWIW, in my opinion*** Lassie Come Home*** is a better movie that Forbidden Planet, although there’s no question which is the more seminal.
And Nyby really shouldn’t get any real credit for The Thing, except as a good sport. He himself admits that Hawks just put Nyby’s name on the production because scifi was a tainted genre, and an A-list director like Hawks just had no business dabbling in it. An fortunate thing, but there it is. I assume it was the studio who refused to put Hawks’s name on the movie, and not Hawks himself, but that part is not clear.
What makes it a little more puzzling is that Robert Wise was openly credited for his direction of The Day the Earth Stood Still the same year. But his real A-list work came afterward; in 1951 he was not in the same class as Hawks, who had already given us ***Scarface, Red River, The Big Sleep, To Have and Have Not, Sergeant York, His Girl Friday, ***and ***Only Angels Have Wings, ***to name just a few. Wise’s biggest titles–The Sound of Music, The Haunting, West Side Story–were still years in the future.
Gotta ask – Cite?
I’ve read a lot about The Thing, but I’ve never read an unequivocal admission by Nyby that he didn’t deserve it, and for the reasons you give.
Sorry, my only cite is an introduction Robert Osborne gave the film on TCM. I’d consider him a reliable source on classic Hollywood, and I personally doubt he’d commit something like that to video unless he was sure of his own sources, but no I don’t have a printed cite for you. My assumption is that he came across it in a bio of Hawks or something–from his intros it’s clear he reads all of those. Or at least has interns who do.
Just recently during the show he and Alec Baldwin host, they were showing an old Alan Ladd and Veronica Lake movie and Baldwin was waxing eloquent about Ladd and avoiding all mention of how Veronica was the character his ex-wife was “cut to resemble” in L.A. Confidential. I could see Osborne squirming and doing all he could not to “help” Baldwin with at least a nod in Kim Basinger’s direction. It was tense!
Yes, which when you click on the footnote, you get:
Obviously still subject to corroboration, but what I’m hearing is that it’s the accepted wisdom that Hawks directed the film, but you want to give Nyby some credit because . . . actually, I’m not sure? What’s *your *cite that the accepted wisdom is wrong? The fact that “everybody knows it” is not proof, I agree 100%. But it’s not, on its own, evidence that it’s wrong, either.
I have to say, Cal, your own language works against you (emphasis mine):
You seem to offer only your good wishes for Nyby as evidence to contradict what “film histories invariably say,” and what “on-set testimony” backs up. All due respect, I think the cite burden is on you.
Yeah – cite by John Carpenter, who was a kid when the film was directed. He’s repeating accepted wisdom, which everyone believes without proof, because “it’s Hawks’ style” But Nyby was Hawks’ cinematographer, and Hawks was the producer. It’s not surprising if the film closely resembles Hawks’.
My reason? Nyby’s name is on the thing. “Everyone says” that Hawks directed it, but, as my cite shows, there is certainly doubt about that, but most people simply assume that Hawks directed it. Despite what you say about science fiction being tainted, I’ve seen nothing to verify that at all. As you yourself note, Robbert Wise got credit for Day the Earth Stood Still.
It’s interesting that Poltergeist, although directed by Tobe Hooper (of Texas Chainsaw Massacre fame, not to mention a great many other horror films), was produced by Spielberg, and feels more like a Spielberg film. Yet i don’t know of anyone who doubts that hooper directed it. Nevertheless, when it first came out, I recall reviews saying that in it Spielberg played Hawks to Hooper’s Nyby, without further elaboration. The story’ds pretty well known, evidently.
And his career was cut short by an awful case of death. Also the nephew of a man who should be mentioned in this thread, Jonathan Demme, director of* Philadelphia *and The Silence of the Lambs.
Unfortunately, he gives no sources for these quotes. Note that, nevertheless, even he says that James Arness as well as Hawks and Nyby gave Nyby directing credit.
Again, that Carpenter sees Hawks’s style in the movie is not proof that his argument is weak, as you seem to suggest. Seeing the style is secondary; it supports the contention that Hawks directed, but it’s not the sole bit of evidence. And a layman’s familiarity with Hollywood politics–especially studio politics–is enough to know that this is probably not the only time official credit did not necessarily reflect reality. And if that credit is your only cite, it’s not enough to reject the received wisdom, because it doesn’t contradict it: it’s not a new discovery of yours that has suddenly cropped up to refute decades of accepted truth. It’s almost as if you’re expecting everyone to go, “Oh my god he’s right, look, it says right here that Christian Nyby directed it! I guess we were wrong all along!” When in fact, that credited is accounted for in the accepted story of what actually happened. And you should reread my post about Wise’s credit: it’s far less likely that a studio would resort to subterfuge to avoid associating Wise, being relatively small potatoes at the time, with what was after all one of the first–if not THE first–big budget, big studio scifi film. In other words, there was no reason to take his name off it: it was a far higher-profile project than The Thing, and Wise was a far lower-profile director.
So if Carpenter’s not seeing Hawks’ style isn’t the evidence that Hawks directed, then what is? As far as I can see you’re not providing any.
I’m not asserting that it’s true that Nyby directed, but I give him benefit of doubt. After all these years I’ve seen, at best, second-hand citations from cast or crew that Hawks really directed.
Anyway Cal, all your points are valid, but they don’t rise to the level of evidence, in and of themselves, IMO. I’d need to see a more concrete cite before I cross over to your way of thinking.
I don’t have to. I’m not arguing against the accepted wisdom, you are. In this case, I have no reason not to accept the accepted wisdom, and you haven’t provided any.
[LIST=A]
[li]The doubt he benefits from is your own creation, and thus requires further documentation. Again with the all due respect, but your reasoning is exactly parallel to the IDers’ “evidence” against evolution: refusal to accept != objective doubt.[/li][li]Cast and crew do not fall under “second-hand” cites. Carpenter does, yes. Even Osborne does. But cast and crew? Can’t get much more firsthand.[/li][/LIST]
A thread of mine about this very issue brought the following cite for Spielberg directing Poltergeist, in an interview of Zelda Rubenstein, who played the psychic.
My wife (a longtime film buff) loves loves loves this movie. I saw it and meh. Two things only stand out in my memory: Peter O’Toole swinging through the air with the greatest of ease, and the title character being played by Charlie Manson.
Any you’re the one arguing against the plain reading of the credits, so I argue that you have the responsibility for providing the contrary evidence.
We argue against “the prevailing wisdom” all the time here at the SDMB. It;'s pretty much SOP, because “prevailing wisdom” is often wrong.
Nice put-down, but meaningless, imho
“cast and crew” certainly is first-hand, but a website purporting to quote them without any cite or attribution certainly isn’t. I’d feel better if I knew where people quoting these were getting the quotes from.
I thought you were going to drop this – you’re not going to change your mind, and neither am I, and continually arguing isn’t going to establish anything. as far as I can see your entuire argument is “It’s the prevailing wisdom – what right have you to challenge it?” and mine is – "Certainly there’s reason for doubt, as even many of the proponents admit, and just because something is “prevailing wisdom” doesn’t mean it’s accepted as correct. Certainly not around here.’
Regarding Tobe Hooper and Poltergeist, this site gives quotes from the people associated with the production asserting that Hooper was, indeed, the director in fact as well as name: