The myth of the young superstar director

I think Batutta brings up a valid topic for discussion. Make no mistake, there is a culture of youth in Hollywood as there is pretty much everywhere. A dude making a kick-ass movie at 45 gets noticed, but a dude making a kick-ass film at 20 gets noticed, BJ's, and a 5 picture deal.

The great thing about being a director (if by that you mean a filmmaker) is that you get to produce a product outside of yourself, that you have control over. Just about every one else in this business tries to break in on the promise of what they might be able to do. A director can make a film and deliver the final product as proof of what he can do. There is a difference, and it is one we should take advantage of. It is exactly why I went from being a screenwriter to being a filmmaker. I could write a great script, but in the wrong hands (which are readily and eagerly available), it comes out like crap.

I'm not sure how clear I'm being...
 
Last edited:
Film historian/analyst David Bordwell has an interesting examination of this from the point of view of auteurs from past decades.

Also, while I can't find the link, screenwriter Frank Pierson (of Cool Hand Luke and Dog Day Afternoon fame) made the point in a speech several years ago that the masters studied by the young lions of the '70s and '80s were the truly great masters--Ford, Wyler, Huston, Cukor, Wilder, etc.--who were well read in both the cinematic sense and literary sense. Not only did they watch, they read. It was a highly literate, hardscrabble generation. That informed their filmmaking tremendously.

That can't be said about the current crop, certainly not anywhere in the same league. As others have mentioned, they've grown up on the MTV cinematic style, not the masters, and they haven't marinated in nearly the same kind of literary storytelling that any of the previous generations of directors have.

Obviously this isn't to say that there can't be or aren't any great young directors today, but I would argue that it's harder for them to become so in the current environment.
 
texvanwinkle said:
Also, while I can't find the link, screenwriter Frank Pierson (of Cool Hand Luke and Dog Day Afternoon fame) made the point in a speech several years ago that the masters studied by the young lions of the '70s and '80s were the truly great masters--Ford, Wyler, Huston, Cukor, Wilder, etc.--who were well read in both the cinematic sense and literary sense. Not only did they watch, they read. It was a highly literate, hardscrabble generation. That informed their filmmaking tremendously.

That can't be said about the current crop, certainly not anywhere in the same league. As others have mentioned, they've grown up on the MTV cinematic style, not the masters, and they haven't marinated in nearly the same kind of literary storytelling that any of the previous generations of directors have.
Click to expand...
Some really good points here. :thumbsup:
 
Yes, good points. But one wonders if the previous generation of masters (DeMille, Griffith, Chaplin, Murnau), felt the same way about those coming up behind them (like Wllder, Wyler, Hawkes, etc). Every generation makes this argument in every known medium of the time, and while I feel it is valid, filmmaking is a form of communication. Half of that equation is the audience and their frame of reference. Many current audience members have the expectations of the MTV generation, just as John Ford's generation had the expectation of sound.
 
Maybe not enough people go to literary movies anymore. So Hollywood doesn't want thinking movies. They snatch up music video directors as a result. They want Too Fast Too Furious. Hard to argue with the dollar. I mean how many of us saw "4 months 3 weeks 2 days," a film so good it blew me away...but even the title takes some effort to remember!

Or maybe the independent film scene will return thinking movies to the masses and generate some superstars. Or maybe there are just too many movies for anybody to rise above the noise.?
 
But Hollywood has ALWAYS been like that. We remember the classics, but for almost a hundred years they have filled theaters with populist sensationalist dreck (some of which is quite enjoyable) to pay the bills . It is, after all, the entertainment industry.
 
Jim Brennan said:
Yes, good points. But one wonders if the previous generation of masters (DeMille, Griffith, Chaplin, Murnau), felt the same way about those coming up behind them (like Wllder, Wyler, Hawkes, etc). Every generation makes this argument in every known medium of the time, and while I feel it is valid, filmmaking is a form of communication. Half of that equation is the audience and their frame of reference. Many current audience members have the expectations of the MTV generation, just as John Ford's generation had the expectation of sound.
Click to expand...

William Friedkin once said when he was an up and coming filmmaker in the 70's, he'd hear old filmmakers complain how bad the movies had gotten, and he'd think, what are they nuts? Movies are better then ever! Now, Friedkin says he's like one of those old guys, so there is some truth to that. However, I personally think there are still great films being made. I'd stack There Will Be Blood up against a Raging Bull, or The Dark Knight up against Raiders of the Lost Ark. I'm just saying the great films these days seem to be made by filmmakers well over 30 who didn't come out of the MTV school of moviemaking.
 
Jim Brennan said:
... But one wonders if the previous generation of masters (DeMille, Griffith, Chaplin, Murnau), felt the same way about those coming up behind them (like Wllder, Wyler, Hawkes, etc). ... Half of that equation is the audience and their frame of reference. Many current audience members have the expectations of the MTV generation, just as John Ford's generation had the expectation of sound.
Click to expand...

True enough. The current directors drink from the same cultural pool that much if not most of their audience does, to be sure. The difference, I'd say, is that culture has changed much more rapidly now than it did then. I'd argue that the society from which the current generation of audiences and directors arises differs much more from that of a generation ago, than the society of Wilder and Wyler does from DeMille and Griffith. So I'm not so sure, barring reading any interviews, that the earliest "old masters" felt the same kind of "it's not like it was when I was coming up" as the newest "old masters."

If that makes sense.
 
To me it comes down to the simple subjective test of "Do the newer 'great' movies hold up to the classic 'great' movies?"

To me they just don't. There is hardly a case where I see what's considered a strong, probing drama from today and don't feel like it's lacking something, and fares badly in comparison to the best of its ancestors. And it can't be due to generational jealousy, because I'm just now forty, and have felt that way since my twenties.

There's just something about the direction, the acting, and the writing of the earlier films that always feels more, well, grown-up, than most of the films that aim for that now. There are certainly exceptions -- I think Shawshank, for example, is one of the finest films ever made, and more recently, thought The Prestige was fantastic -- but as a rule, it's certainly the case for me.
 
I love old films. THe majority of my DVD collection is pre 1975, with the bulk being in B&W. I honestly don't know what makes a classic. Gone With THe Wind is completely overrated to me. Spectacle over substance. Casablanca shines whenever Bogie and Rains are on screen and sinks whenever Bergman opens her mouth. But I could watch The BIg Heat or the Thin Man over and over again. The Philadelphia Story is one of the funniest films ever made, and bringing thngs into a more modern era, The Godfather is arguably (IMHO) the most perfect American movie ever produced.

But I loved Shawshank, I loved Charlie Wilson and Good Night and Good Luck. I thought Lars and The Real Girl was incredibly delicate and touching. A true work of art.

It's a different context and a different expectations
 
Last edited:
Jim Brennan said:
But Hollywood has ALWAYS been like that. We remember the classics, but for almost a hundred years they have filled theaters with populist sensationalist dreck (some of which is quite enjoyable) to pay the bills . It is, after all, the entertainment industry.
Click to expand...


You know, you're so right.





___________
 
In my (limited) experience, age has significantly hindered the ability to move forward. Maybe there's a threshold around 20-years-old where people can start to be seen as something other than children. I hope so.

I suppose it's better to be young now (lots of time ahead) than be in a perceived race against the clock... but the prejudice against young people is pretty extreme, and it's quite difficult to get much respect at a young age. (no Rodney Dangerfield jokes :))
 
I remember seeing an interview with Sting that I think is particularly relevant. He was talking about his influences and he feels that there is a danger for rock musicians to only be influenced by other rock musicians. It becomes incestuous and watered down. Sort of like drinking your own bath water. You have to go out and seek other things to throw into the pot, otherwise you start getting the same stew in different combinations. I think that film directors need influences other than films, or, at least films other than the genre and era they are working in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top