learning from your mistakes? yeah right!

[c.g._eads]

everybody talks about how much they learn through each directing experience. how they 'learn' from their mistakes, making them a 'better' filmmaker. Then how is it that almost every filmmaker's 'breakthrough' film, the one that puts them on the map, is their best?

Granted the first film you put out there HAS to be great, since it basically HAS to compete with all of the stuff hollywood's put a lot more money into, but i mean why is it that these filmmakers, who've learned so much, usually make worse and worse films.

M. NIGHT SHAYLAHALAM
P THOMAS ANDERSON
QUENTIN TARANTINO
GEORGE LUCAS
STEVEN SPIELBERG (arguable)

I'm aware that these filmmakers made movies before their breakthrough movies, but the same rules still apply. They usually make sub-par movies from then on out.

[stabwound]

m. night shaylahalam is indeed a one-shot wonder. I think his best ideas were used up in his first movie.

Got a feeling I'll end up like him.

I think Spielberg is more consistent in making good movies than the others on the list.

[krestofre]

Spielberg definitely does not belong on that list. I'd also argue that Tarantino had a long way to go before he runs out of steam.

[Steve Strickland]

Maybe you could use the same theory that I have for bands. There are exceptions obviously, but when you ask what a favorite album is from a certain band it is almost always the first or second album. Few bands or directors for that matter can keep the mojo up past a few albums or films. The well becomes dry.

Let's leave Spielberg off this list, though. I think he's pretty damn consistent. I always find his movies entertaining. Every few years, he puts out a real winner like SPR or Schindler's List. His new Olympic hostage movie looks like it's going to be in that company.

[Hectorxd]

why is george lucas on this list for that matter? american graffiti, all 3 original star wars movies. thats at least 4 right there... your selection of directors is confusing to say the least. Are you saying that spielberg only made one good movie??

Richie White: Is "P-Town" petersburg?

[David G. Smith]

I like the band analogy. A muscian has his/her whole life to prepare for their first album and usually kicks the next one out in 6 months to a year, and then another and another...

Maybe the same thing for filmmakers, they spend their whole life preparing for the first film and put everything into it.

Don't agree with Spielberg on the list.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Tarantino is back.
I've liked all of PT Anderson.

Here's 5 thoughts:
1) Kubrik took what, 4,5, 7 years, a decade?, to make each movie, ruminating on each idea looooong before he went officially went into preproduction. This process is sort of forced on first time filmmakers. Maybe they spend 5 or 10 or 20 years rehashing there film over coffee and playing it over and over in there heads.
2)What is a "1st film" The first time someone ever picks film camera or shoots something with a crew? No. Shamalamadingdong went to film school. So the "first film" some of these folks make is really a "debut" film for which they have been honing and testing there techniques either in school or informally on there own, in either case, as there technical abilities are growing along side that great idea they've been developing, one probably shapes the other equally.
3)Rodriguez struggled to make the transition to Hollywood filmmaking after El Mariachi, because he was used to shooting it all himself and essentially crewing it himself. Now he gets a studio film and someone else - the B unit director - is off filming the action sequences ... hold on that's what put Rodriguez on the map ITFP, sweet camera movemet and blocking in action sequences. So Desparado really sucked, but he has been getting steadily back on track since then -- mainly by saying screw Hollywood, building his own studio in in Austin, and ensuring a hefty profit with cheaply made CGI kids movies.
4) In contrast to point #2 we forget that people like Tarrentino and Rodriguez had very little or NO filmaking experience before thier first film. So because they are brilliant filmmakers this first story comes out wholly formed and beautiful, but then they don't have the craft to maintain that necessarily, just assload of talent. I mean what would you expect of someone's 2nd or 3rd film in film school !? And yet because these 1st gems, which had been ruminated on for years and which were made under conditions that the filmmaker put together and chose (albiet with limited means) that perhaps allowed them more control or to work in ways that suited there idiosyncacies, we expect the next two or three to be equally mind blowing.
5) Obviously the reason these first films are so good is because they were made by a talented intelligent visionaries. Some of the films have such and overwhelming success that the hot new filmmaker may have carte blanche on greenlighting there next project, or at least the pull to argue a reluctant studio to give it the goahead or the ability to attach stars to a piece that's a little out there or experimental. Having said that, you see why you get films like Magnolia (which I liked) but is certainly not going to be as accessable as Boogeynights -- becuase the guy has the ability to make what the Japanese call in theatre "A big play" doesn't mean a good play, but the evening of theatre is judged as a success nonetheless because the theatre artists attempted something outside of the box or that pushed the envelope a little, in short that really went for the brass ring in a really out there vulnerable sort of way. So some of these guys -- unlike Shamarammadonkeykong, are neither seeking to rehash what they just did, or to play it safe, but to go for the biggest thing possible -- to mess with the form, to do it differently, which is not always going to pay off, but can yield unsurpassed results.



everybody talks about how much they learn through each directing experience. how they 'learn' from their mistakes, making them a 'better' filmmaker. Then how is it that almost every filmmaker's 'breakthrough' film, the one that puts them on the map, is their best?

Granted the first film you put out there HAS to be great, since it basically HAS to compete with all of the stuff hollywood's put a lot more money into, but i mean why is it that these filmmakers, who've learned so much, usually make worse and worse films.

M. NIGHT SHAYLAHALAM
P THOMAS ANDERSON
QUENTIN TARANTINO
GEORGE LUCAS
STEVEN SPIELBERG (arguable)

I'm aware that these filmmakers made movies before their breakthrough movies, but the same rules still apply. They usually make sub-par movies from then on out.

[Justin_Kirch]

damn, well said jdanstan.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Word.

[Justin_Kirch]

word indeed.

[Barry_Green]

Everyone "jumps the shark" sooner or later...

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Everyone "jumps the shark" sooner or later...
Hey Barry -- what does that mean is that a reference to Jaws or something?
(not being sarcastic)

[Barry_Green]

No, it's a reference to "Happy Days". Check out www.jumptheshark.com for more info.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

No, it's a reference to "Happy Days". Check out www.jumptheshark.com for more info.
Ah that's depressing.