Oy.
—DiB
It depends on the director.
Some do better. Some do worse. Some are not affected.
I suppose the advantage of being unsuccessful is that you have less studio interference in the final product….less pressure to sell the product so to speak. The final work is more pure.
Once a director becomes successful, the pressure is on.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the films are bad by the way.
I have deliberately refused to name any specific directors so as not to start the inevitable debate that would arise from such a discussion.
Truffaut, whose writing and thinking about films I admire much more than his films themselves, said that you should only look at the first 3 films of a directors ouevre, as after that it becomes a “career”. It’s a very cynical way of looking at things, but interesting and relevant to this topic.
For the most part I disagree, I can’t really think of a director who really let success get to their head. Recent directors like Jarmusch, Haneke, von Trier have all been putting out some of their best work, after some 20 years of critical or commercial success. My favourite ever, Bunuel, was putting out mastepieces on the regular over his last 2 decades, but he arguably didn’t have the earlier “success” OP is asking about.
The polarising figure here is Fellini I suppose – the unlimited money and artistic freedom he had by the latter half of his career led to some wild and divisive films like Satyricon and Roma, unfocused and opulent pieces that are a long way from La Strada and Vitelloni. I like them a lot, others paint Fellini as exactly what a director shouldn’t do. I was wondering, Jazzaloha, if you had any particular figure/s in mind?
“I suppose the advantage of being unsuccessful is that you have less studio interference in the final product”
That depends. Sometimes if a director is successful, they can get final cut written into their contract. And once you get final cut, it will always be in subsequent contracts. I don’t think studio interference is dictated so much by “success” as it is cost and risk. If you’re successful in making good films, films that make a profit, but they cost very little to make, chances are you’re going to be left alone by the studio (Woody Allen being an example – incidentally he also has final cut). However if you’re making a movie that’s got a $200 million budget, chances are you are going to have a short leash with the studio.
If we’re talking about Hollywood filmmakers, then Santino is on the money. Also articulated in my favourite film essay:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14994144/David-Foster-Wallace-FX-Porn
“A director — often one who’s shown great talent in earlier, less expensive films — who is now so consumed with realizing his spectacular digital vision, and so dependent on the studio’s money to bring the F/X off, that he has neither the leverage nor the energy to fight for more interesting ororiginal plots / themes / characters.”
^sounds like Mathieu Kassovitz, Nimrod Antal, Gavin Hood…
lol
“A director — often one who’s shown great talent in earlier, less expensive films — who is now so consumed with realizing his spectacular digital vision”
I think in this situation, it’s a confusion on the part of the director’s strength. Just because you knock it out of the park with a small indie film doesn’t mean you have the ability to navigate a huge big budget film. These two kinds of filmmaking require very different skills and I think a lot of filmmakers (as well as studios) assume that if you can do one, you can do another. But I don’t think that’s true. I think Christopher Nolan is the exception and not the rule.
However it doesn’t mean that if a director becomes successful and moves up to directing big films and fails that he’s a bad director. Or that he “couldn’t handle success”. I mean, it could mean this but I don’t think it’s automatic. Some directors don’t feel comfortable with huge amounts of success (Soderbergh being the most obvious example). And some directors just aren’t hardwired to make giant blockbusters. And some would rather challenge themselves which might mean doing something risky and could lead to failure as opposed to doing something safe that had a greater chance at success.
@Santino
Some do better.
How about some examples?
@RGrimes
I suppose the advantage of being unsuccessful is that you have less studio interference in the final product….less pressure to sell the product so to speak. The final work is more pure.
Less meddling from studio executives and greater resources will eliminate or reduce constraints—which sounds like the ideal situation, but I sometimes think this is a mixed-blessing—sometimes more curse, than blessing—especially when we’re talking about filmmakers that rely on effects and could benefit from big production values. If the director isn’t disciplined and focused on the right priorities, this can lead to disastrous results.
@B-Rad
Truffaut, whose writing and thinking about films I admire much more than his films themselves, said that you should only look at the first 3 films of a directors ouevre, as after that it becomes a “career”.
I take his point, but, yeah, this goes too far; I’m pretty sure we can name directors who’ve made good-to-great films in the later part of their career.
I was wondering, Jazzaloha, if you had any particular figure/s in mind?
I did. Peter Jackson or Christopher Nolan come to mind.
@Jazz -
I think Christopher Nolan comes to mind. Of course some people might say Following or Memento are his best films but I don’t really subscribe to this. And even if I did, I’d have to admit that his more recent films have been pretty impressive and that he’s been able to handle the pressure that success has brought. But I also think that Nolan is a good example of a filmmaker who’s sensibilities are more in line with big films. Even if you look at his short film, Doodlebug (which is on YouTube), you’ll see a guy who’s interested in doing big things.
I also think Nicholas Winding Refn is someone who meddled around for years in small, independent productions than got brought on board Drive by Ryan Gosling and made something far superior than anything he’d done in Denmark. Of course let’s see what he does next and whether he can sustain the success of Drive.
Other examples? I’d say PT Anderson hasn’t been hampered by his success. While I didn’t care for Punch Drunk Love, you gotta admit There Will Be Blood was such a departure for him compared to his first few films and he really did an impressive job with it (The Master looks equally as confident). And as I’ve stated before, I think Fincher is only getting better with age.
“I take his point, but, yeah, this goes too far; I’m pretty sure we can name directors who’ve made good-to-great films in the later part of their career.”
Absolutely. As someone else mentioned, both Haneke and von Trier are doing things far superior to their early work. I almost think it’s better to start out low on the radar and slowly start to build a body of work where you can develop your craft before people start taking notice.
@Santino
I just find his bigger films a mess—too many ideas that are half-baked; the characters and story aren’t developed as very well at times, too. (The Prestige and Inception suffer from the latter, imo.) He doesn’t seem to be managing all of these elements very well, imo.
As for Refn, I did think Drive was better than Valhalla Rising.
Don’t agree with PT Anderson. I think I like Hard Eight the best out of all his films. Magnolia felt too sprawling and needed to be trimmed, I think. Punk Drunk Love doesn’t suffer from the same problem, but it left me cold (to the point where I still wonder if I’m to blame). TWBB looks good, but it seems to tread CK territory in terms of the story, character and theme—without really adding anything fresh or interesting in the process. (The film looked good, though.)
I have mixed feelings about Fincher. I prefer his earlier films, and I tend to think his most recent films are overrated. On the other hand, maybe I just prefer the earlier films, and don’t really care what he’s going for in these recent films; he doesn’t seem to have different interests. But, if you forced me to take a definitive stand, I’d say he’s not gotten better.
As someone else mentioned, both Haneke and von Trier are doing things far superior…
I don’t know if I’d agree their work is far superior…but then again, we don’t seem to see eye-to-eye on this subject. :)
Clint Eastwood
I was the one who originally put up Haneke and von Trier – this is not to take away from their early work; their respective feature debuts, Seventh Continent and Element of Crime are very striking, impressive and uncompromising films (the latter has a few flaws though), but I can’t think of any directors now working at their level – Amour and Melancholia are both masterpieces IMO, and their recent slew (haven’t seen Antichrist) are generally more mature, but not that much better, but I think it would be hard to make the case that their respective successes have made them worse.
Haven’t seen Nolan’s early stuff, but I agree there were serious problems with Prestige and Inception, it felt like at times Nolan didn’t exactly know how to make the most use of the vast resources at his disposal, especially considering how much promise the premise of Inception had.
Scorsese is the best example of a filmmaker in my mind whose work has gone consistently down hill, inversely proportionate to his growing critical stature and commercial success, and the greatest testament to Jazzaloha’s original argument.
@B-Rad
…but I think it would be hard to make the case that their respective successes have made them worse.
I’ll agree with that. Maybe their success is relatively small compared to success in Hollywood’s terms. I imagine that Haneke and von Trier, despite their success, still face limitations regarding resources—and I suspect that executive-types didn’t ever really restrict them severely.
Haven’t seen Nolan’s early stuff, but I agree there were serious problems with Prestige and Inception, it felt like at times Nolan didn’t exactly know how to make the most use of the vast resources at his disposal, especially considering how much promise the premise of Inception had.
My sense is that he got his priorities mixed up a bit. I think the DiCaprio and Cotillard’s characters and relationship was more important than the Nolan seemed to think; it was the emotional heart of the film or at least a crucial component of it. My feeling is that the twisty plot and clever filmmaking took too much of his time. But that’s pure speculation on my part.
Scorsese is the best example of a filmmaker in my mind whose work has gone consistently down hill, inversely proportionate to his growing critical stature and commercial success, and the greatest testament to Jazzaloha’s original argument.
With Scorsese (and Woody Allen), my guess is that success isn’t so much the problem as they might have run out of ideas—at least ideas that really mattered to them. (Oliver Stone might be like this, too.) I almost get the sense their trolling around for something interesting, but the scripts they get are only mildly interesting—versus something they feel compelled to make. Again, I’m totally guessing.
@Christopher
Clint Eastwood
I assume you mean a director who has gotten better with success. I can barely remember his early films, but my sense is that you’re right—although some of his recent films are just bland (e.g., The Changeling.).
Before I forget, I wanted to add one more potential drawback with success. I wonder if successful directors don’t have enough people who will tell them when their work isn’t good. Watching Ridley Scott’s Prometheus comes to mind. To me, this would explain the improbably stupid behavior of some of the characters.
Success in this case must mean a lack of financial limitations.
I’m wondering if there is dilution because there are more voices employed in the work e.g. producers, production help etc.
Limitations are where creativity is found in a medium – but with more money there, can be greater limitations to be found. It might be motivational, where more money leaves the artist less conflicted about life; hence, less apt to take risks.
I completely disagree about Clint Eastwood. I think Play Misty For Me is one of his best films and his more recent films over the past ten years, which seem to be under the scope of “anticipation” and “Oscar-buzz” have been pretty mediocre (except for Letters from Iwo Jima).
The classic example of this is Michael Cimino, who had the studios hand him everything after Deer Hunter.
Classic Directors like Hitchcock and Billy Wilder seemed to do fine coming into the system.
Robert said, I’m wondering if there is dilution because there are more voices employed in the work e.g. producers, production help etc.
Limitations are where creativity is found in a medium – but with more money there, can be greater limitations to be found. It might be motivational, where more money leaves the artist less conflicted about life; hence, less apt to take risks.
Good points, Robert. The last observation reminds me of boxers who go downhill after becoming champions.
@Santino
I don’t think I’ve seen Play Misty or I can’t remember seeing it (although I know what it’s about). I know what you mean about “mediocre,” but I liked Million Dollar Baby (although the ending disappointed me).
@Pierre
_The classic example of this is Michael Cimino, who had the studios hand him everything after Deer Hunter.
I’m not a huge fan of Deer Hunter, and I don’t think I’ve seen his films after that one. (Heaven’s Gate? Year of the Dragon? What else?)
@ Santino:
I agree about Eastwood…I think as a director he’s mediocre. I’ve never gotten all the buzz and hype that surrounds his directorial efforts. I don’t see any distinctive style or voice at work in his films. If anything, he’s a passable craftsman.
He’s had at least one masterpiece though….Unforgiven. He’s had a 2nd near masterpiece which isn’t even brought up in most discussions about Eastwood….A Perfect World. The Outlaw Josey Wales and High Plains Drifter are both solid efforts.
I found Million Dollar Baby a cheat and unbearably preachy to boot. I found Gran Torino pretty one dimensional with a passel of cliches. Mystic River was bolstered by fine performances but, ultimately, proved unsatisfying for some reason. Flags of Our Fathers was a colossal disappointment with a miscast Ryan Phillipe in the lead.
I did not see Letters from Iwo Jima.
I love Eastwood in front of the camera though. He’s a true legend.
@RGrimes,
It’s weird how in the early 2000s Eastwood became this very buzzed-about filmmaker with every film anticipated to be an Oscar contender. I think this all happened after Mystic River and really hasn’t let up ever since (even when he’s doing obvious crap like Changeling and Invictus). And I don’t really know why. After Unforgiven in the mid-90s, which I agree is his best film, it’s not like he became an Oscar darling. It’s very strange.
I’ve never seen A Perfect World but I have heard good things about it.
I agree with a lot of the points both of you are making—although, in terms of filmmaking, I’d say he’s solid, not mediocre. In terms of the quality of the story or ideas (particularly the depth and nuance)—that’s where the word “mediocre” comes to mind. To me, Unforgiven is marred by the latter (but that’s another story).
I do think A Perfect World was interesting, and it’s one I’ve been meaning to re-watch.
I think Hollywood gets excited about Eastwood’s films because: a) He’s an icon, and Hollywood seems to like when iconic actors make good films; b) his films are well-made; c) his dramatic films are the serious type of movies that Hollywood likes to award. (He’s sort of like a better version of Ron Howard.) Indeed, if we tried to identified what the Academy Award voters look for in a best picture, analyzing his films might not be a bad way to go about doing this.
“Success in this case must mean a lack of financial limitations.”
My ‘Oy’ refers to the fact that we’re obviously conflating assumptions about ‘success’ with general commercial viability versus an investigation into the notion of intentions versus limitations, pretty much setting up soapboxes for anyone who wants to complain about the band’s third album not being as good as their second (few people, of course, have heard the first, and those who have mention it’s very interesting because it’s quite different).
Within that framework alone people have already provided substantial counter-examples. But I feel it goes without saying that directors suffer more for lack of success than they do for having them. In most cases a success determines whether a director works again at all.
—PolarisDiB
@ Santino:
I forgot about the Lifetime movie of the week Changeling…..again, mediocre at best. I did not see Invictus but had no desire to either and Hereafter looked awful.
@ Jazz:
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on Unforgiven. I think it gets better with each passing viewing…it’s strikes me as a commentary on Eastwood’s films up to that point….with Eastwood coming to a certain self realization about how his films glorified violence (to a certain extent).
I think it’s telling that this was his last western….and if I remember correctly..it was his last ultra violent film as well.
I don’t know of another director who made such a self aware picture. It’s brilliant.
“^sounds like Mathieu Kassovitz, Nimrod Antal, Gavin Hood…”
Speaking of Kassovitz, recently I caught his latest film REBELLION. It is actually well made and fairly even with its treatment of the events. It would’ve been less easier for a young director to tackle such controversial subject in French politics, not to mention place him/herself in the center to play the main character.
^That is great to hear. I look forward to seeing it. Hopefully it’ll get a US distributor soon.
I think that whether or not a director’s films get better or worse with success, their early pre-success films tend to be more interesting (of course they will be exceptions). This is probably due to the filmmakers overcoming restrictions (usually budgetary). Without the means to pay for big shots/actors/effects, they must become exceptionally creative in order to achieve something even close to their vision.
@Grimes
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on Unforgiven. I think it gets better with each passing viewing…it’s strikes me as a commentary on Eastwood’s films up to that point….with Eastwood coming to a certain self realization about how his films glorified violence (to a certain extent).
Are you suggesting the film didn’t glorify violence? When I saw the film, I got excited by the first 3/4 of the film—because it seemed to realistically portray (or at least seriously deal with) the psychological consequences of killing so many people, but the climax just erased all that, in a way that seemed to clash with the realism in the first part of the film. Munny seemed psychologically crippled by the killings, but somehow he magically overcomes that and turns into the badass “Man-With-No-Name.” I admit, that film persona appeals to me, but it seemed to go against and waste everything that preceded it. Or so I thought when I first saw the film. (I haven’t seen it since.)
@ Jazz
Watch it again, but with the understanding that violence is an addiction. The movie also subtley ties violence together with alcohol. Will Munny’s wife not only stopped his killing, but he also points out that she made him stop drinking. Later in the film, he gets sick and continues to accept whiskey to warm himself. This is the first step in his backsliding to his Man With No Name persona. Also, all his violent acts/killings occur in a bar. Munny is a recovering violence addict and he makes the mistake of falling in with a couple of enablers. The climax of the film is very in character. Also, he doesn’t become fully Leone-style badass. Even in the end, he can’t shoot very well and deals with Little Bill with a shotgun.
Jazzaloha
Off the top of my head, I feel like success generally hurts directors more than helps, and the purpose of the thread is to explore this topic. By “success,” I’m mostly thinking of the greater resources and freedom that come with success. (We could also talk about the effects of fame and material benefits, too, I guess.) Do directors tend to get better, worse or stay the same when they become very successful? What is the nature of the challenge that comes with success? Are there advantages with being unsucessful?