Director's become bad with age?
-
rooprect — 16 years ago(February 26, 2010 07:26 AM)
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the majority of directors who started out great usually go downhill as they get older. Even the godsKurosawa, Bergman, Kubrick, etcnever really came close to the greatness they achieved early in their careers. I think it's because they lost the youthful passion & boldness that drove their early efforts.
I recently listened to the director's commentary for Catch-22 (Mike Nichols) and he seemed almost apologetic for the long, artistic camera shots, saying he'd never try that today. That was pretty disappointing to hear; it seems like most directors take that "safe" attitude later in their careers. And of course that's precisely what makes them suck. -
-
RumourdProd — 13 years ago(December 05, 2012 01:42 AM)
Usually you're burning to make a certain number of stories. The rest of your career is making scripts that have come your way but aren't passion projects. Or, the later projects you really wanna make, lack some sort of relevance to today's interests.
I don't think this has happened with Spielberg. Sometimes he shows he's matured, other times he diabetically-crashes back into a stupid, infantilized sentimentality or 'charm' (Crystal Skull). Lucas forget it, he's done, he's ossified into one way of telling stories. Hyams, haven't paid attention to him since 2010. Carpenter whoever said Cigarette Burns was a return to form, is beyond dumb cuz it was a POS. His last viable film was Prince of Darkness, and even that was just okay, at best (but pretty amateurish). Ed Wood got 2000better.
John Huston made some pretty good movies at the end of his life. Maybe not out and out classics, but award nominated
Also Billy Wilder made Buddy Buddy which was awful but shot in my hometown, therefore it's great. -
I_Guard_Tanelorn — 12 years ago(April 03, 2014 08:35 AM)
Directing seems to be job where the better you get at it, the worse the product becomes. Most directors don't know what the hell they're doing in the beginning of their careers and are just making it up as they go along. Once they become seasoned veterans of the trade, the passion gets lost.
"I said no camels, that's five camels, can't you count?" -
Aylmer — 11 years ago(May 09, 2014 09:33 AM)
Exactly. The more "professional" a director is, the more smoothly the set runs, but the less personal the product is. So, you have a weird double-bind where the great films are made by obsessive newcomers fighting to overcome scant resources. Then as they mature and figure out the most efficient ways of doing things, the films degenerate into safe ways of making money. The industry is money-driven, so therefore filmmakers are preferred by the industry who turn things in "on time and on budget" over ones with innovative ways to tell new stories.
Even if filmmakers begin in the latter camp, over time the reality of the business has to set in and they have to sell out to keep getting regular work unless they make such a great name for themselves that they can do whatever they want (like David Lynch or Steven Soderbergh). Most of the auteurs start to fall into that hubris trap though, thinking that whatever they make must be golden because they made some classics early on (think Michael Cimino or Francis Ford Coppola) and then stop putting in the same amount of effort because they know that they don't have to.
It works the same way for producers and composers. James Horner made some of his best scores early on in his career but overtime just started rehashing himself and his work stopped standing out. -
vbel — 10 years ago(July 09, 2015 04:47 PM)
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt remake was good but looked like a made for TV movie.
Clint picks projects that interest him as does Robert Redford. They can do whatever they want to, most of the others are directors for hire.