The myth of the young superstar director

Batutta

Batutta

Major Contributor
There is a myth out there, cultivated in film schools and the minds of young filmmakers that you can become a young superstar director in your 20’s directing big, important films. We’ve all heard the stories of Spielberg directing Joan Crawford at 22, or Kevin Smith and Robert Rodriguez selling their films at 24, but it’s becoming clear to me that those are freak occurrences, the exceptions to the reality, which is that most filmmakers break in somewhere in their 30’s. And yet every day I see young kids fresh out of film school or even high school thinking they are going to be the next one. But the truth is that they have a better chance of winning the lottery. Let’s look at the ages of the directors of some random films in release right now--

Fast & Furious - Justin Lin (35)
Monsters vs Aliens - Conrad Vernon (41)
Knowing - Alex Proyas (46)
I, Love You Man - John Hamburg (39)
Adventureland - Greg Mottola (44)
Duplicity - Tony Gilroy (53)
Sunshine Cleaning - Christine Jeffs (46)
Watchmen - Zach Snyder (43)

See a trend? Anyway, my point is that if you find yourself turning 30 and are depressed that you aren’t the next Spielberg or Paul Thomas Anderson or even McG yet, take heart in the stats above. Most budding directors these days flower somewhere in their 30’s. Tarantino made Reservoir Dogs when he was 30. Chris Nolan made Memento when he was 30. The Wachowski's made The Matrix when they were 34 and 32. Zack Snyder made 300 when he was 39. Have patience and hone your craft.
 
Myths are not trends. While the Robert Rodriquezes of the world banged out their ground brakers in college, I really doubt anyone thinks this had to do with age. His willingness to be a lab rat to make a film is what ensured a film would be made.
I go back to tenacity again. Have that and youth just isn't required.
I do relize many youngans think they will make the next block buster next year This is what is required to remain tenacious.
 
I wonder if it takes so long to learn the craft and so much trial and error that being really young might be a real benefit. I mean, the very young director has so much more room to make a mark. I bet 50-something directors have a lot more to say and a lot more insight, but far less time to fail.


___
 
Age has nothing to do with it. It is all about how much determination you have. Anyone here can make something great. Anyone here can go about directing a film, it's just about how determined you are and how far you are willing to go. And it has a lot to do with how smart you are.

Just because a lot of directors are 30 and up doesn't mean someone who is in their early 20's can pound a project together, pick up a fan base and run with it.

Age is just an excuse people use.
 
Mattykins said:
Age has nothing to do with it. It is all about how much determination you have. Anyone here can make something great. Anyone here can go about directing a film, it's just about how determined you are and how far you are willing to go. And it has a lot to do with how smart you are.

Just because a lot of directors are 30 and up doesn't mean someone who is in their early 20's can pound a project together, pick up a fan base and run with it.

Age is just an excuse people use.
Click to expand...

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying...Yes, a 22 year old fresh out of school might make the greatest film ever, but chances are he won't. Talent usually needs time to develop. There is a book called Outliers which is about the hidden reasons for success, and it shows the average time it takes to master a skill is 9-10 years. Since most people graduate from college in their early 20's, it's no surprise that most directors don't make a mark until their 30's. Intelligence only takes you so far. It also has to be coupled with experience and practice, which takes time. You can even argue that Spielberg falls into this curve, because he started making films when he was 12.
 
While talent needs experience to develop, not time. This is why when ya see a young person making as much or more than the veteran next to them, they do indeed usually work harder.
Goes back to tenacity/determination. Spend time dreaming and that dream just may leave ya behind. Spend your time chasing those dreams and they'll never leave your site.
 
I love how people like to become the exception, a la Tarentino, when in doing so you're no longer the exception, you're just like all the other wannabes.
 
grinner said:
While talent needs experience to develop, not time. This is why when ya see a young person making as much or more than the veteran next to them, they do indeed usually work harder.
Goes back to tenacity/determination. Spend time dreaming and that dream just may leave ya behind. Spend your time chasing those dreams and they'll never leave your site.
Click to expand...

But it takes time to develop ENOUGH experience to excel, which is what I meant. The book Outliers (a fascinating read) broke it down to about 10,000 hours to master a craft or talent, which for a reasonable person takes about 10 years to accumulate. Bill Gates became Bill Gates because he went to the only grade school in the 60's that had a computer terminal. By the time he got to college he had accumulated his 10,000 hours and was way ahead of everyone else. It's all about how hard you work and paying your dues, some just pay them sooner than others.
 
I'm saying time is not what it takes. Opportunity has to be created to exel. Time is what people who think they are going to mature count on.
I think we are on the same page. It's not the time... it's the time ya put into it.
 
So given that time is an imperative component, it stands to reason that the younger you start making your mark the better. Harder to get that time in when you're 55. But not impossible, obviously.
 
Yes, we is on the same page...I just thought it was interesting when I noted how most of the great directors whose films I follow and go see no matter what made their mark by the 90's. I could count the interesting directors from this decade on one hand. I'm not saying there aren't any good ones, just few great ones.
 
oh man people say the same about music every dacade. We just start to dislike lazyness as we get older.
lol
 
grinner said:
oh man people say the same about music every dacade. We just start to dislike lazyness as we get older.
lol
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not saying films made this decade suck, there have been plenty of great films, but they are mostly made by filmmakers who made their mark by the end of the 90's.
 
Had another thought. If it generally takes 10 years for a talent to ripen, that would mean between 1990 and 2000, something happened that sapped the talent pool and produced less compelling filmmakers this decade. My guess would be music videos. Any young filmmaker getting into the business during that time would probably find work first in the music video world, but I'm of the opinion that directing music videos is poor preparation for directing films. The focus is all on the superficial and cheap effect and none on storytelling or performance, so the 90's produced a lot of directors who could pump out whiz bang visuals but couldn't tell a story or work with actors. What's interesting now though, is that the DV revolution really took hold and became a viable production alternative in the early part of this decade, which, if we go by the 10,000 hour rule, means we'll be getting our first DV era Spielberg or Scorsese pretty soon. It could be you.
 
Well Gladwell's book, Outliers, also makes another point. Despite the fact that you can become an "expert" in 10 years, that's still not the only factor in success. Timing is everything. Or at least half the battle. As Gladwell points out, the guys who made billions in computers were all born within 3 or 4 years of each other! Obviously, there have been a lot of really smart dedicated computer engineers in the intervening years, but none have matched the financial success of the Gates and Jobs, etc. So...maybe what you're identifying, Buttata, is some other change in the filmmaking landscape that prevented the "superstar" from emerging in the past 10 years. It's not lack of talent or dedication, but other factors about this decade that have prevented that level of recognition we saw in the 70s, for example.
 
sean90291 said:
So...maybe what you're identifying, Buttata, is some other change in the filmmaking landscape that prevented the "superstar" from emerging in the past 10 years. It's not lack of talent or dedication, but other factors about this decade that have prevented that level of recognition we saw in the 70s, for example.
Click to expand...

That's why I pointed to music videos as a possible cause. Most directors since the 90's have come out of the music video and commercial training ground, where they aren't practicing things like story and performance but instead snazzy visuals and special effects, so their films reflect that. Their 10,00 hours is applied to the wrong things. Also, in working with labels and corporations they learn to conform, so individual voices aren't really encouraged. They don't produce films that stand out because they have no unique point of view. I'm generalizing, and there are always exceptions. David Fincher came from music videos, and while I don't love all his films, I admire his intentions and skill. However, I usually find the better directors these days emerge from dramatic episodic TV, especially HBO.
 
Last edited:
man I think you have overthought this whoooole thing.
It's not hard to see what shook economy, business and everything else in the last 5 years. Music videos had fizzled long before that. The only thing that changed is more film schools spitting out more luke arm talent that feel like a career is owed to them.
Effects took the place of content when writers decided to take some time off.
When reality tv became the norm, movies followed suit in style like they always have.
Now, when a youngan goes old school, we ironicly call it contemporary.
lol
 
grinner said:
man I think you have overthought this whoooole thing.
It's not hard to see what shook economy, business and everything else in the last 5 years. Music videos had fizzled long before that.
Click to expand...

Music videos may have fizzled, but the talent they produced are still making the major films these days. The talent developed afterwards hasn't come to fruition yet...and hey, I'd rather overthink then underthink.
 
well overthink some world peace or how to make a chick make sense... something useful, man.
lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top