Friedkin Uncut

The best thing about this documentary on the life and films of William Friedkin is Friedkin himself. He comes across as a most engaging fellow. Not lovable mind you, or even very likable (not sure I'd like to have dinner with the guy), but most engaging. Whenever he is onscreen talking about art versus professionalism (hint: he prefers the later) or the silliness of awards shows or the over ratedness of rehearsals and multiple takes it is most refreshing. While valuing his craft Friedkin does not fool himself into thinking he is a Mastermind. Skilled entertainer will do him just fine and such modesty/honesty is most welcome in an industry that tends toward the overblown and the hyperbolic.

Still, I agree with a number of the previous reviewers who feel that this doc is on the thin side. I mean, the guy was married four times (one of them being JEANNE MOREAU, for cryin out loud) and had two kids. But aside from a throwaway remark by Damian Chazzelle none are mentioned. Sure would have been nice if we knew why the guy needed four tries to get the husband/wife thing right. And it would have been even nicer if we could have been privy to whether or not he was a good dad, especially considering the fact that he admired his own father. The film is titled "Friedkin Uncut" but it seems like they cut a lot. B minus.

PS...For the record, of the talking heads not named Friedkin my faves were Ellen Burstyn and Willem Defoe and my least fave, as usual, the windbag called Tarantino (who seems like he's trotted out for every post 1970s film doc).

I don't want to say that I was disappointed in "Friedkin Uncut" but I kind of was. William Friedkin is a Hall of Famer and he deserves a proper documentary. Unfortunately, "Friedkin Uncut" is not it. There are some good stories in this movie but mostly it's a lot pats on the back. This movie would have been better if they didn't interview William Freidkin at all. That way the filmmakers would have been the ones "Uncut". "Freidkin Uncut" plays more like a tribute movie than an actual documentary. I wish it was better.

I'm not sure what I expected, but this surely wasn't "Friedkin Uncut." There are very little insights into who he is and why he does what he does and if there is any rhyme or reason to it. It's a bunch of head shots of people whp have been in his films or helped him create them and everyone loves him. OK. But that's not worth the time.

William Friedkin, actors and film makers who have worked with him and admire him, and Zubin Mehta talk about Friedkin.

The writer Gene Wolfe once said that you never learn how to write a novel; you just learn how to write the novel you're writing. Friedkin's philosophy of directing a movie seems to consist of doing as much research as possible, casting right, seeking spontaneity, and taking chances. I'm not sure there's much more insight to his creative process than tat on view, but there is a lot of admiration on offer, not only for Friedkin, but for other film makers by Friedkin, including Fritz Lang and Buster Keaton.

I also learned that Friedkin directed operas, which is how Mehta comes into this mix.

I have to agree with most of the commenters about how disappointing this so-called documentary is. I have a theory about it, though. William Friedkin was a gigantically talented man, a man of great intelligence and taste. Look at his art collection. Look at his wives (Jeanne Moreau and Sherry Lansing). Look at his work! (French Connection is a film that I can watch whenever it's and never tire of.)

But I think Mr. Friedkin was also a vain and controlling individual, not surprising in one of his Olympian gifts. I think he felt extremely parsimonious in the presence of the makers of this film. He did not trust or respect them enough to reveal his true self. So he deflected his blessings to Damien Chazelle, Kathryn Bigelow and the city of Venice.

Too late now. Maybe someone with more perspicacity with do a full bio on the man. He (and we) sure deserve it.