Robert Zemeckis: artist or skilled hack?

...or neither? Or both?

I was just having a little think about the guy, what with him having a new film out in the states, and everything - and I know there's a seperate Polar Express thread floating about, but I wanted to use this thread to discuss Zemeckis's career in general.

So... he has a much-loved trilogy behind his belt, almost always makes films on the cutting edge of technology, and is generally as reliable a popular hit-maker as you're likely to find. Yet still he seems to have failed to achieve the level of popular recognition that Spielberg and Lucas have. Despite his successes, his undeniable A-list status as a director and his moderately experimental attitude (even aside from his numerous technology experiments, it's a near unprecedented move for a major live-action director to throw himself directly into a fully animated project) its remarkably rare to find someone that actively considers themselves "a Robert Zemekis fan". So why might that be?

I think it may be because someone like Spielberg has a clearly defined cinematic identity; themes, stylistics and a general 'personality' that are evident throughout his career (evident enough to be acnowledged by the wider public), tying his films together into a coherent body of work. Zemekis on the other hand, is far more low-key as an artist and as a public personality (I don't think I've ever read an interview with him, and know next-to-nothing about his personality or appearance), and moreover, that anonymity very much extends to his films. As solid a director as he can be, I don't think he's ever managed to distinguish himself enough to truly escape his old 80's identity as 'Spielberg's hired goon'.

In the end, I just don't think there's that much you can say about the guy. I think he's a solid enough director, but he doesn't seem to any serious artistic vision; aside from a tendency towards technology-driven family-targeted projects, there isn't anything dramatically unique or distinctive to link his various projects, either stylistically or thematically.

The funny thing is: he's shown himself able to capture the public imagination with individual films on a remarkably consistent basis, yet I think as an artist he lacks the distinctiveness and artistic charisma needed to capture the public imagination as a credible auteur. People seem to love a good number of his films, but I think on the whole they tend to think of them in isolation, rather then in terms of Zemeckis and his body of work.

So, does anyone have any thoughts on whether or not I'm on-track here, or on Zemeckis in general?

 

I believe Bertocci considers himself a fan.

I'm not really a fan though. I find many of his movies at least mildly entertaining, and don't think he's untalented, but few enough of them have really caught my attention. Not really a fan of Alan Silvestri, either.

I almost see Zemeckis as a slightly second-rate, more offbeat Spielberg.

 

I like Zemeckis way better tha Speilberg. Back to the Future is my favorite movie ever.

 

I do think he's a tad overrated as a director and that he has Tom Hanks to thank for most of his sucess.

I know that I immediately think of Tom Hanks when I hear about a Robert Zemeckis film, regardless of whether or not he's at all involved in the project.

But, maybe that's just me.

 

The only project I was aware that connected Zemeckis and Hanks was the aforementioned Polar Express.

But anyway. I definitely like Zemeckis, mostly for Roger Rabbit and BTTF. You're right though-- his projects tend to take on an identity of their own apart from him. Perhaps that's a good thing (Just not, perhaps, for his career...)

 

The only project I was aware that connected Zemeckis and Hanks was the aforementioned Polar Express.

You're forgetting a little something called Forrest Gump and Cast Away.

 

Okay, I took your point and checked his listing on IMDB... and, yes, he did a lot things that I knew the movie, but not even that Zemeckis was involved. I guess this strengthens the case that Zemeckis doesn't get as much credit as he should. If only by one anecdotal case, anyway.

 

...see, i normally find Zemeckis' films entertaining..

My problem with the guy is philisophical..

I don't know if you guys remember the trailers that aired for CASTAWAY, but they pretty much RUINED any suspense from that movie as the trailers CLEARLY showed the scene where Hanks and Helen Hunt meet AFTER he gets off the island.. This upset alot of people, as, well, part of the fun about a movie about being shipwrecked is finding out IF he makes it off hte island or no..

Zemeckis seemed to imply that he didn't care if Trailers revealed plotpoints of a film..

That's always bugged me.

On one hand, i can see HIS point. He basically said "if a movie is good enough, it doesn't MATTER if you know how it ends", which, well, IS true. But HOW many films are really GOOD enough to be watched repeatedly after you know the big twist?

Meh, anyways, i count him up there with the likes of Paul Verhoeven as the Directors who can best pull off FX driven films..

 

I do think he's a tad overrated as a director and that he has Tom Hanks to thank for most of his sucess.

So true,the rest of his movies arent that great,but Cast Away was an all most perfect movie because of Hanks,same as Gump.

 

I've liked his works, although the one trilogy that I've been meaning to see is Back to the Future.

I really enjoyed Castaway. What else has he done?

 

Polar Express, The (2004)
Cast Away (2000)
What Lies Beneath (2000)
Contact (1997)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Death Becomes Her (1992)
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)
Back to the Future (1985)
Romancing the Stone (1984)
Used Cars (1980)
I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978)

Those are his main directing credits. I like Zemekis. He doesn't wow me often, but he's a more than capable director. No matter what, his name will always be remembered for Back to the Future and Forrest Gump.

L8r

 

He's a great director. I don't even like all of his movies, but they're excellently directed at any rate.

Also, he seems to champion whatever genre he does. Anyone see What Lies Beneath? It's a slower movie, but when viewed as a thriller or suspense it's top notch. I haven't seen Polar Express, but everyone I know who's seen it loves it. It seems that whenever he ventures into another genre he immediately makes a smash hit, and the movies generally aren't "brainless" like whoever created "King of Mindless, Cliched Crap" Bruckheimer or however you spell his name.

 

However, he is an absolute retard lately when it comes to working on the trailers for his own films (and yes, he is involved with those), where he purposely spoils the film ("people want to know what they're getting into when they go to see aflick" or some such nonsense).

Said much better then i could in my post. Well-done!

 

When I saw the words "Robert Zemeckis" and "hack" at the same time, my dark side was on the verge of explosion. Thank god I read the whole topic in general.

IMO, Zemeckis is one of the greatest directors of modern cinema, and it's somewhat sad that he doesn't have the same established identity of a Steven Spielberg. I knew he collaborated with Hanks for Forrest Gump and Cast Away(Both of which are on my All Time Top 10 Favorites), but it wasn't until recently that I learned he also made Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and the BttF trilogy.

Maybe that's a good thing, though. It seems nice to be the creator of some of the most entertaining movies of recent memory without having the media swarm you relentlessly.

 

It seems nice to be the creator of some of the most entertaining movies of recent memory without having the media swarm you relentlessly.

Very true. I also didn't realize he directed the BTTF movies until just recently. And I didn't know that he directed Who Framed Roger Rabbit until I read this thread. So yeah, it just goes to show that he doesn't really have an identifiable style to call his own.

I mean, you can tell almost instantly when you're watching an Oliver Stone film. Same goes for Tarantino, Speilberg and several others. Zemeckis' films, however, just don't have that quality. Whether or not that's a good or bad thing is up for debate.

 

He seems like a capable and skilled director. Most of his films are entertaining and have lasting value. Though Cast Away was a very dull film.

My favorite if his works is the wonderful adaptation of Contact - which is one of my favorite novels, so I held a high standard.

 

Zemeckis' films, however, just don't have that quality. Whether or not that's a good or bad thing is up for debate.

It's a good thing. It's like he's making his movies custom made, not making it "Zemeckis-ish" or "Spielbergish". Ithink he doesn't have the name recogniztion because of that and because people love to see the same styl erepeated over and over.

 

^^^ I think some of that is fair enough, but I wouldn't personally call it a 'good thing', just a 'thing'.

Instead of "skilled hack", maybe I should say "skilled director for hire" (assuming there's a difference) - he basically seems to go to each project with the intent to 'get the job done' before moving on to the next.

The thing is, having an anonymous directing style can make for 'smoother' entertainment, but it also generally makes for less deep, distinctive and intriguing entertainment.

Zemeckis has little obvious wider vision or personality expressed through his films - in fact I think his personality tends to be so suppressed that I doubt, based on his current body of work, that anyone could actually have much of an idea what a truly personal, 'Zemeckian' film would even be like. That's why, while I think he's often a great director, I don't think I could ever consider him a truly great artist.

Also, I disagree that having a distinctive, personal style implies 'repeating the same style over and over'. That's a little bit like saying the Beatles were repeating themselves by making all of their songs recognisable as Beatles songs.

Many directors with strongly defined styles can cover a huge range of dramatically different subjects and genres successfuly - meeting the functional stylistic requirements of the subject/genre without compromising the unique personality and vision that makes them compelling artists in the first place.

 

I'd say he was a competent director whose reputation is on a steady decline. Roger Rabbit was inspired but since then? Forrest Gump is highly overrated. Cast Away was great--on the island. Unfortunately there was an extra 45 minutes to an hour bracketing the island. Frankly, I don't aspire to see any movie because Zemeckis directed it. Like GL he seems to have fallen into the trap of pushing the limits of what can be done on screen. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it can make for some dull movies since story is usually a secondary consideration. I have no desire to see Polar Express (apparently like most of the continent ) in the theatre or on DVD. I won't see any future movies Zemeckis directs because he directed them, but I would consider not seeing them.

 

Moff_D, what did you think of Contact?

 

I knew I was forgetting something. Actually, I liked Contact, but it isn't a great movie by any means.

 

Did Contact really need to be 3 plus hours long? Plus, the ending was bad.

Zemeckis has some great films - Roger Rabbit, BTTF Trilogy, Forrest Gump, and Romancing the Stone - all very different films.

I like how he isn't Hollywood mainstream like Harrison Ford, or Angelina Jolie.

 

Zemeckis isn't Hollywood mainstream? I don't know how he could be MORE Hollywood mainstream. He consistently works with big stars on big-budgeted projects backed by the major studios. Many of his films are family-oriented.

THE POLAR EXPRESS despite some of the criticism is clearly NOT the work of a hack. That's a work of a very talented visual artist having a ball with the latest technology. Not many directors would even ATTEMPT a movie like that. To take a 29 page kid's book and develop it into a feature film is no easy feat. The kids I took were riveted. I also thought it had heart. And by the way, I thought it also had a warm message about keeping your imagination alive. And you've got to see it in 3D.
It's incredible.

He's major A-List director who just likes to make great movies. He's survived and prospered in the toughest game in entertainment, feature films. I admire his work, because he's done all kinds of films and done them well. He's one of the most capable, professional directors around.

I give him a lot of credit for being a very smart filmmaker except for the thing that Drew Atriedes
and 2nd Quest mentioned: what kind of a storyteller wants their story spoiled before people SEE THE FILM?
Has he lost his MIND? I strongly disagree with him on this. I really resented the advertising for CASTAWAY. It ruined it for me. Shame on ya Bob!