Is Roger Corman a bad director?

[Scott H]

We all know Corman for his terribly low budget b-flicks tacked onto the second side of double features back in the golden age. His films are usually exploitations of trends in society at the time, and really offer nothing in the sense of substance. They even called writing rooms "echo rooms" because ideas bounced around in there many many times over. But my question to everyone is if Roger Corman really is a bad director. Sure he made bad movies, but considering his thousand dollar budgets and week long shooting schedules, would you call his work good? Or at least adequate? Think of it this way:

If he had a major picture budget with as much time as he'd like to make a movie, could he use his talents to make something decent? He did after all work with competent actors like Jack Nicholson and directors like Francis Ford Coppola.

I don't think so.

What do you think?

Scott H.

[Menard]

Roger Corman has produced/directed/distributed probably over 500 movies and you can count on one hand the number of movies he lost money on. A poor director does not deliver that kind of record. He knows what sells and has made a point to deliver that in his movies, which is why he is so successful. In addition to being good at distributing, producing, and writing, he is also good at directing. He has launched many careers, directors and actors. He does not direct the majority of movies he distributes, but some of the best he has distributed were directed by him.

[Brother Ragnarok]

He's a great director of beautifully bad movies.  I loves me some Roger Corman.   Everyone who hasn't should read his autobiography.  The man has some really interesting stories to tell.

[blkrider]

I wouldn't consider him a bad director, but he's never been about anything other than making a buck.  I don't fault him for it since he's never pretended otherwise, and he's definitely not alone--a lot of the B-movie filmmakers are the same way.
Most of the movies that he's produced or directed have been pretty entertaining, and there aren't many people you can say that about.

[Chris K.]

blkrider wrote:

> I wouldn't consider him a bad director, but he's never been
> about anything other than making a buck.  I don't fault him for
> it since he's never pretended otherwise, and he's definitely
> not alone--a lot of the B-movie filmmakers are the same way.

On the one hand, you do have a point about Roger not pretending to be otherwise. But, I wouldn't say that he was always in it for "the money". Yes it's true, the man has made some good and some bad. So has Steven Speilberg. So has George Lucas. But, what makes Roger Corman so much better than those directors is that he can make a film look GOOD on any budget. Let's face it, can Speilberg or Lucas make a movie on a budget of $900,000? I doubt it. But Roger can, and in a way Hollywood hates him for that! Why? Roger has proven time and time again that you don't need a million dollar budget or big-name stars to make a good movie (and considering some of the Hollywood fiasco's made today, Roger's point is well taken by me). Instead, Roger always relied on a good storyline no matter how ridiculous it may sound and actors and actresses who have the ability to know their lines and perform well.

When it comes to calling Roger Corman an artist, he is never categorized as that. And it's a shame he isn't, because he truely is an artist in the filmmaking sense. But, Roger will be dismissed by critics because of his style of filmmaking (i.e., makes films on small budgets and shoots in 10 or 15 days and he makes cheap B-films), yet don't read deeper into his style. When it came to budgets, that was what he was provided for. And because of that, he had to make good use of it. Not many filmmakers today (at least mainstream ones) attempt to make good use of their budgets. The older Corman films from 1950's to early 1980's were made on a low-budget, and yet Roger makes them look like a decent production value is there. Directors like Francois Truffot, Jean-Luc Goddard, Jean Renoir, and even Akira Kurosawa started their careers making films on small-scale budgets and turning out decent production values, and the critics love these guys and they are called "artists". Watch Truffot's SHOOT THE PIANO PLAYER, it was shot on a low-budget, but the production values are good and the acting is nicely done coming from amateurs, but the guy is called an "artist". Same with Goddard's BREATHLESS; it's so low budget, but it has some good acting and a good story. As for shooting films in a week or two, Roger has said that before shooting he spent weeks rehearsing with his talent until he was satisfied with their performances, thus when shooting commensed their would be minimal takes to get because his performers REHEARSED, getting their characters and performances nailed! Gee, for a low budget director who makes films on the cheap that sure sounds bad doesn't it? No, not really. In fact, as a filmmaker myself, I believe heavily in rehearsals before shooting. And no, Roger never made every film in just one take, an exaggeration made by many. That way, everybody is prepared. And last but not least is the films he made; yeah, he has done some sci-fi stuff that is not too well regarded today (i.e., IT CONQUERED THE WORLD, TEENAGE CAVEMAN), but then I'm on the other side of the fence as I feel Roger's sci-fi films are pretty damn good considering the era they were made in. They had some great stories that were rooted in the pulp imagination, as what sci-fi is: imagination and making the impossible possible. TEENAGE CAVEMAN is perfect example: it has a story that, yes it is indeed silly, nonetheless rooted in sci-fi pulp imagination of a prehistoric world that is actually a nuclear holocaust. Yet, the reason why this film is hated is because of the title. Well, Roger didn't like that title, as it was originally called PREHISTORIC WORLD, but distributors Nicholson and Arkoff at AIP changed it to TEENAGE CAVEMAN, and Roger has been accused of giving the film that title!

Sadly, the films Roger has made in the late 1980's up till now have been disappointments. But, that's Roger as a producer in that era. I truely wish mainstream Hollywood would take more notice on this guy more often and give him at least one more shot. Even if he makes a film on a small budget and it is a failure, at least Roger would be able to show them how to save a bit on the dollar signs. Or, at least give him Lifetime Achievement Award, please! Personally, to sum it up, I think Roger Corman is a good director who is capable of making some truely great films. LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS, THE RAVEN, THE ST. VALENTINE'S DAY MASSACRE, etc. are great examples of Roger at work as a great director. Who else could have made THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS in two days with great performances coming from Dick Miller, Mel Welles, and yes Jack Nicholson? Nobody, but Roger.

And check out the video interviews that he gave for MGM DVD releases of THE PREMATURE BURIAL and MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH. For a director who is considered to always be in it for the money, he sure as hell is able to defend his work, artistically and aesthetically. Not many low-budget fillmakers can do that sucessfully either.

[Jack Corbett]

I know that his autobiography was called something like: "How I made 100 movies and never lost a dime." I can't really remember it, though; I've been trying to find that Empire magazine...

By the way, did he direct or produce Carnosaur?

"CHOKE ON 'EM!"

[Scott]

The Roger Corman autobiography was great. Everyone on this board should read this one. It's about how he made films for I think it was $10,000? and in like 3-5 days, plus stories of the early days of many great actors and directors. Good book.



Post Edited (02-01-05 07:36)

[Scott]

He found and created his own niche in film business. The key word again is entertaining. He may have trouble making more meaningful films, but then again maybe he isn't interested.

The only thing I didn't like about the early Corman films were that jazzy saxaphone music you hear in the background in most of them.

Other than that he can be an inspiration for budding filmmakers. For me the film ED WOOD, Roger Cormans autobiography, and a community college videotape production class is what got me more interested in low budget films over the past 10 years.



Post Edited (02-01-05 07:42)

[iluvdolma]

He produced Carnosaur. Adam Simon directed it.

[Menard]

Certainly the key word is 'entertaining', as Corman has certainly made more than his share of movies that fall into that category. Ian McCulloch made an interesting point with regard to the movie ZOMBIE. In comparing himself to another actor who primarily made serious films, more people have seen ZOMBIE than have seen all of the other actor's serious films combined. Some may take shots at Roger Corman for not making serious or art films, but he will be remembered when those others are long forgotten.

[Ed]

"He's a great director of beautifully bad movies."

That sums it up for me.  He's competent, and makes exactly what he intends to make, given budget constraints.
-Ed

[Ozzymandias]

Watch  The Intruder    together with the Poe films and Little Shop of Horrors     and    Bucket of Blood   .  I think Corman is underrated.

[Mr. Hockstatter]

I think he's a good director.  How about this question - take some of Hollywood's big budget directors and see what they can do with a thousand bucks?  Hell, just look what they do with millions.

So yeah, I'd say he's good.  There are obviously a lot of shortcomings to his films, but that has to do with acting ability, script, budget, etc.  The direction is pretty good.

[Eirik]

Whether or not he's successful is immaterial.  Michael Bolton and Celine Dion are huge success stories.  That doesn't mean they don't suck.  The Friends Show was like number one in this country for a decade.

That his movies are entertaining - and I agree with this point - is also irrelevant because obviously anyone who frequents this site understands you can be entertained by bad writing, acting, special effects, directing, etc.  (sometimes more than by good writing, acting, effects, directing, etc.).

Yes, he operated with the scripts, effects, costumes, settings, and actors he could afford with his budget.  But still, I look at Corman's films and I see a lot of scenes that look like they did it in one take.  Maybe I'm not the student of his work that others here are, but I'm not seeing the brilliant direction in these movies.

And I must stress that that's okay.  I've never turned off a Corman flick before it was over and I've enjoyed most of them thoroughly.  Unlike studios that drop immense budgets for immense box office sales, he dropped paltry budgets for poor to middling box office sales and a lifetime of video revenues.  Probably a better risk financially speaking and look at all the crap he's given people like us to enjoy.

[Flangepart]

Corman made fun movies. They entertained, and he was a genius fro doing it on pocket change.
He is what ALL aspireing B-movie makers want to be.
And thats not a bad thing to aspire to...