sketches of Frank GEHRY movie comments?  

I found it both
interesting and revealing. Interesting because it shows more Gehry buildings than I could ever affort to visit and revealing because, in spite of his friendship with the film director it shows certain aspects of his design methods that I think of as less positive. In a certain way it confirmed my believe that we do not have extra ordinary talents, but we have people that instinctively or deliberatly ignore certain aspects of their design work and in doing so they almost inevitably do extra-ordenary work. In the whole documentary there is hardly a word mentioned about the program of a building, about it's energy efficiency or the responsible use of raw materials. ..and I presume that with the exception of the first one, Frank Gehry does not pay much attention to these aspects of building. It seems to me less likely that his buildings would be as remarquable as they are if they were designed along a more "holistic" or complete vision of architecture.
The images in the film are often wonderful, the dialogue is interesting if you are interested in people, if you are interested in architecture I found it rather shallow...but I am more intersted in people. If I have to mention one negative point it would be that in spite of the body of work, and in spite of the evidence (a lot of other people present in the Gehry office) very little is said about the people that make all of this happen. I find that Renzo Piano, just to name one, shows far more respect for his collaborators and never forgets to credit them for their talent and contributions. It is certainly something to see if it is on the progarm of a theatre near you!

A testimonial of sorts
The fact that Sydney Pollack seems to like Gehry helps persuade me that I should take the architect more seriously than I had before I saw the movie. And that's long after spending significant time in and around at least one building -- the Cleveland Jiffy-Pop structure. Pollack's endorsement helped counter my "Emperor's New Clothes" reaction; I'm willing to give FG another look.
I'd love to see a time line tracking FG's work and what he was talking to his shrink about while he was doing it. The psychiatrist interested me; he comes across in the film as much more significant than any architectural collaborator or influence. Is he accepting new patients?

is gehry that great?
okay i must admit he designed some really wonderfull buildings. the guggenheim in bilbao led to an economical revival in that area. but nowadays are not much of his buildings look-a-likes? (where is the creativity? can he reinvent himself?) And btw the guggenheim is nice from a distance; has anyone tried the stairs outside!? really bad designed, and i couldn't believe that a man called to be one of the greatest could design such a bad stair. btw someone tried his bench for Heller (mmm comfy!?). okay everyone deserves his monday and on the other days of the week he did some amazing things

just an opinion
My personal reaction after seeing the film is one of disliking Gehry, quite strongly. It sort of confirmed my prior skepticism about his work -- one that involves an enormous ego (what kind of a person would want to have his psychiatrist / analyst talk about him and his 'neuroses' on film?) and 'Hollywood' (in the worst sense of that word -- all show, no substance; very low common denominator -- why are Michael Ovitz and Bob Geldorf in it?). and Koen's point is another variant on this theme -- it's all Frank, and alone Frank, all the time.
This is not to say that he has not produced individual pieces of work that are brilliant. Though it does seem that he's been doing the same building for the last 15 years ...

Probability and statistics
... or to put a mathematical spin on it ... the percentage of assholes in the general population is about the same as the percetage of assholes among the brilliant.

At my age you start
to forget things...but Geo H. reminded me of FG's psy, and although I never had any use for that particular profession, I had the same reaction. This is an interesting fellow indeed...but I am not all that interested in what he had and has to say to FG.
Gerrit's first point:".. but nowadays are not much of his buildings look-a-likes?.." is not un-founded but remember FG was well into his fifties before he made the first "success" building. I guess that it is tempting to continue a succesfull approach. I also fear that his clients simply expect a certain type of building and FG is not going to let them down. The second point about some of the functional aspects of the stairs is yet another illustration of the fact that their seems to be a price to be paid for the unusual design.

Although
I have not yet seen the film, I happened to catch the director being interviewed (Charlie Rose, PBS [USA] ) shortly before the film appeared. I learned that Gehry chose Pollack because his photos of Bilbao (and other FG works ?) were the ones Gehry liked best. Were the two friends as well ?
I understand that FG is beginning to explore his "next step." I have no problem with any artist working repeatedly with a particular vocabulary until he has exhausted its possibilities. Richard Meier did the same. The "orthogonal" parts of Gehry's work are reminiscent of Peter Eisenman's, somehow; distorted grids and canted surfaces, etc. While Peter Eisenman is dead serious, Gehry at least has a sense of wit about what he is doing. Of course, even the most despicable men can appear both innocent and quite charming. . .! (Too bad George and Dick can't quite pull it off. . .or is that our salvation ?)
American designers, some of them, may tend toward the "styling" of objects as opposed to the "designing" of them. One has a great deal more respect for the real designers, like Mr Piano. To learn of that man's humility and his professional ethic only reinforces one's admiration.
By the way, the term "blob" has apparently been chosen to designate both the forms of Mr Gehry and those of a Liebeskind or a Hadid -- whose hard-edged crystalline explorations are the "lightning" to Gehry's "thunder clouds" ? [See endless discussions at DesignCommunity, under "blob."]
SDR

I'm trying to think of any...
I'm trying to think of any major figure in modern society who, if not absolutely ruined, has not been tempered significantly by "success". Those individuals who have been less hampered by its confines certainly come to mind, and I think of those persons Gehry could possbily be one. It will take awhile to see, but strangley it is often those who have been suitably denied success for long periods of time, those who been able in relative obscurity to formulate a vision, who seem to be the most able to break new ground. Could we dole success out perfectly like a kind of medicine, what would the world be like, just enough, at just the right time.

It's interesting I think...
It's interesting I think that in a society that has an incredible appetite for promoting and devouring even the most banal of individuals, making them "famous", those rare persons who are exceptionally good at what they do somehow seem to assert themselves over time or are recognized and ultimately become honored for their achievements; that the cream eventually rises at all in such an undeniable cesspool,let alone to the top,is nothing short of amazing. What's good is always, as they say, what it is, and can be nothing else even if it could. What's new is never new, and seldom ever good.

Very
good. It must certainly be said as well that, of two equally talented persons, the more energetic, the more ambitious, the more communicative and the more adaptable one is more likely to be "heard of by many." Those who hide their light under a bushel either don't wish to take the gamble or don't care if their work receives a wider audience -- or perhaps lack some or all of the above-mentioned attributes.
I think. . .

I'm not certain SDR that...
I'm not certain SDR that this is always the case. The ambitions of certain individuals, poorly applied, can be a very dangerous thing, especially when the sheep have become so easily sold on their slaughter. Adaptation today is a quality that is most relevent to politicians and fast food vendors, to those whose ideas are typically void of anything even close to resembling substance. It is strangely the noisiest among us who often have the least to say.