The 'stench theory' of good cinema, or anything else for that matter

I have a ridiculous theory about the movies that I like and think are good. I think they have an aroma, a flavour, a sense of some organising power behind them. To put it far more crudely, I like movies which a great big stench of someone good being involved somewhere. If you can't detect that aroma then there's something wrong. For example the first Superman movie has a distinct whiff of Richard Donner's hard work and exactitude coupled with Mankiewicz's snappy dialogue (spelling provisional), every Peter Weir film has that sensation of the great man in the background, Ghostbusters and Groundhog Day both reek of Bill Murray and the directors Ivan Reitman and Harold Ramis and there are many more. It's a sign that someone has put effort into something to make it their own. It doesn't have to be a director or actor; it could be a distinctive writer or author or even musician but it needs to be there somewhere.

Now, it is possible to make an excellent movie without that smell, but it may not be a likeable excellent movie. The classic example for me is 'The Dark Knight', which I infamously don't like much at all. It doesn't really smell of anyone at all, and is more the product of engineering than a work of passion. Perhaps this 'stench theory' can be equated to works of art versus the exercise of technique? This stench theory is a necessity for a good movie but does not guarantee a good movie. For example, while I didn't like 'The Dark Knight' I have recently reversed a long dislike for Tim Burton's 'Batman' of 1989 and remembered why I liked it in the first place. It's really a very controlled mix of Tim Burton and Michael Keaton, creating a powerful product which manages to mostly survive the Jack Nicholson torpedo in its side. 'Batman' was a good movie, and much more artistic than its successors. 'Batman Returns' is the opposite as it is the work of a less controlled Tim Burton and so it fails despite being sufficiently stinky by our theory, much as a lot of the famed auteur's work does except for the underrated 'Ed Wood'.

The stench theory could be extended further but why bother and be redundant? For now, movies are being made by technique rather than by art and we will have to wait for either a renaissance of personal involvement in cinema or watch it sleep for a while longer. So, the next time you go to a movie and wonder why it didn't work for you despite being well put together, consider the stink theory of film making and wonder if any one person was responsible for anything. If not, then maybe that's the reason you didn't engage. If yes, then perhaps even the greatest of directors aren't worth a bucket of wooden nickels being stinky in some way.

O.

PS I don't like Spielberg much, except for 'Jaws'. I wonder whose is the stink in 'Jaws' that keeps me interested. <Cheeky grin>.