OBSERVATIONS ON FILMMAKER RIDLEY SCOTT

Some time ago I was involved in a discussion about Ridley Scott in the comment section of a well-known film site. To my bewilderment, a substantial number of commenters were of the opinion Scott wasn't an original filmmaker with a distinct style but merely a hit-and-miss director with a great eye for visuals and a tendency for misanthropy. I happened to very much disagree, but when another poster asked me how I then would characterize a typical Ridley Scott film, I at first struggled to come up with an answer. It's true: unlike Spielberg with his consistent humanist themes and kinetic storytelling or Scorsese with his famously precise milieu studies so meticulously crafted to the tune of pop and rock songs, and unlike Del Toro's well-known (and very obvious) love for creatures and monsters or the particular visual style of Tim Burton or the absurdist humor in a Terry Gilliam film, the distinct trademarks of a Ridley Scott picture are indeed a bit harder to pin down. But after I've had some time to deliberate on the matter, I did manage to come up with the following take on the veteran director:

A typical Ridley Scott flick is an ambitious, star-driven event movie for an adult audience with a strong emphasis on beautiful (some might even say "flashy") visuals; it's usually a film that strives for scope and scale regardless whether it was made for 15 or 150 million dollars. There are some undeniably pulpy elements in many of Ridley's films, mostly in terms of graphic violence.

It's interesting to note though, that despite the fact that the man almost exclusively makes big budget studio movies that are clearly intended to entertain a large audience, you won't find the kind of "light" entertainment in his filmography that is happy to just offer a perfectly crafted roller coaster ride. There's no INDIANA JONES, no BACK TO THE FUTURE, FRIGHTENERS, TRUE LIES or even a "grounded" superhero film like THE DARK KNIGHT RISING among his oeuvre, nor could one imagine he'd even be interested in doing such a thing.

Sir Ridley, it must be stated, is one serious mothereffer. Of all the many films he's made (25 features to date to be precise), there's only 4 - LEGEND, MATCHSTICK MEN, A GOOD YEAR and THE MARTIAN - that at least partly rely on humor, and even those films are not really winking at the audience; the humor is not of the meta, the self-referential or one-liner kind, it's either situational or grounded in the characters. There's no denying even Ridley's "lighter" movies take themselves very, very seriously.

Those 4 films mentioned above are the odd exceptions in a filmography that otherwise largely consists of dead serious (and mostly R-rated) movies for adults; as far as I'm aware, the only film of his that wasn't made with a predominantly grown-up audience in mind is LEGEND, as even WHITE SQUALL - which is a film about teenagers - doesn't really seem to be aimed at kids and teens. And this probably IS the most unique thing about Ridley, especially now, in this age of over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek PG-13 action/superhero movies: his stubborn insistence on making earnest, non-sanitized blockbusters for grown-ups.

There's precious few other big-budget filmmakers who have a somewhat comparable filmography in that regard (meaning that they predominantly make expensive, R-rated studio pictures); Martin Scorsese, Michael Mann, David Fincher and Wolfgang Petersen certainly fit the bill, though the first three are far more intellectual, less pulpy and more restrained filmmakers compared to Scott, and Petersen's films appear to be mostly works for hire (at least the ones he made in Hollywood).

And all 4 of those filmmakers have been nowhere near as prolific as Ridley Scott since the turn of the millennium and the arrival of the modern superhero blockbuster: Ridley made 15(!) movies between 2000 and 2017 (just for comparison, even Steven Spielberg - one of the most prolific high profile directors ever - "only" made 13 films in the same time span; Scorsese made 7, David Fincher 6, Michael Mann 5, and Wolfgang Peterson only directed 4 movies during that time). 10 of those last 15 films by Scott were R-rated.

Yet despite his insane cinematic output (and that was all AFTER he turned sixty, mind, and most of those movies had huge, complex productions), you never get the feeling Ridley's just going through the motions. Even his lesser works feel personal; the stories really seem to mean something to him, and although he doesn't write them, he infuses them with his ideas or even develops the stories from the ground up with writers of his choosing. Ridley's films reflect the personality of a man who has a keen interest in the world, be it geopolitics, religion, gender-politics, science, philosophy, history or the modern drug trade, but whose views seem to be neither shaped by academia nor by the mainstream.

He's a very independent mind our Sir Ridley is, and he's not exactly subtle - which is another interesting trait of Ridley's movies, though that lack of subtlety in his films doesn't equal dumb or reactionary. On the contrary, his films convey the worldview of an intelligent but largely self-educated and (rather stubborn) man with an in-your-face, no-bullshit attitude whose bleak worldview and aversion to sentimentality I personally find refreshing, because it is so rare in Hollywood (though it does occasionally make him come across like a bit of a cynic and even misanthrope, which, upon closer inspection of his films, I doubt he actually is, given how strongly he obviously feels about certain subjects like, for example, feminism or religious fanatism).

What I personally find intriguing about his movies is that you never know what to expect from them (well, except for the visuals of course: you may with good reason expect those to be fantastic). Ridley never plays it safe; among the Hollywood directors who regularly get to make 100 million dollar movies he's probably the least concerned with the 4 quadrants. He may want you to buy a ticket for his movies, but he's not aiming to please you. And that's another weird quirk of his: Ridley clearly wants that large mainstream audience for his films (and seems very disappointed when he doesn't get it), but he isn't exactly making mainstream films.

For better or worse, the dude really takes risks and remains committed to his own, distinct - though sometimes very weird - vision, like few directors who work on a similar scale. I mean, regardless what you think of the films: what other filmmaker even has the balls to try to get something as unconventional as G.I JANE, THE COUNSELOR or ALIEN: COVENANT made as expensive, star-driven studio productions? And when he brings his A-game, when everything really clicks, Ridley following his vision results in unique, even genre-defining classics such as ALIEN, BLACK HAWK DOWN, THELMA & LOUISE, GLADIATOR or BLADE RUNNER. And even when everything doesn't quite fall into place, you still get a visual feast, great performances, compelling characters and more often than not a film that, while perhaps somewhat uneven, is more interesting and original than 98% of Hollywood's other event movies.

Even in his lesser films the craftsmanship remains astounding (it's no coincidence his films were in total nominated for more than 40 oscars), and I personally think among his 25 features there are only 4 that are badly uneven and lack a distinct personality, probably because he either didn't have enough control over them or didn't quite know what he wanted; that's LEGEND, 1492, ROBIN HOOD and EXODUS. Overall, his body of work remains hugely influential and nearly unparalleled in terms of genre diversity (Spielberg's probably the only director that's comparable in that regard).

My personal ranking after recently re-watching every single one of Ridley's films:

A+: ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER A : THELMA & LOUISE, BLACK HAWK DOWN, GLADIATOR A-: AMERICAN GANGSTER, THE DUELLISTS, THE MARTIAN, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (the extended version would be a straight A if it had a more charismatic lead) B+: MATCHSTICK MEN, PROMETHEUS, THE COUNSELOR B : SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, BODY OF LIES, ALIEN: COVENANT, HANNIBAL, WHITE SQUALL, BLACK RAIN, G.I. JANE (that last one is perhaps his most unfairly maligned film and was ahead of its time) B-: A GOOD YEAR C: 1492, LEGEND C-: ROBIN HOOD, EXODUS