I think I understand what your saying—that other filmmakers can borrow the more obvious elements of another filmmakers style without getting the same effects—maybe I’d call it mood or tone—that are present in the original, because they don’t have the same intangible investment in these stylistic elements, because they haven’t synthesized the same raw materials.
Yes, because then people think he’s imitating other people’s films!!!!
“Wes Anderson, at age thirty, has a very special kind of talent: He knows how to convey the simple joys and interactions between people so well and with such richness. This kind of sensibility is rare in movies.” -Martin Scorsese
First of all, Tarantino is known for making homages to his favorite films and directors, and imitator in his own right.
Second of all, not everyone develops their own style right off the bat and to emulate an established director is not only complementing their style and technique but a means to a more creative future.
Robert Trapped in Nowhere You can’t rip off Tarantino if he has done nothing but rip off other directors. Just look at his latest movie.
this 5 part article covers the topic of wes anderson’s style and influences very well -
http://www.movingimagesource.us/articles/the-substance-of-style-pt-1-20090330
Adam I just watched part 3 a few days ago, I was about to post it. Great video. I found the Hal Ashby thing interesting. So this whole imitation thing I kind of got all wrong so this thread is a bit of a blunder. I guess imitation helps establish your own style. Great video though.
I think Wes Anderson imitates Kubrick to an extent(ex. wide angle shots, zooms, occasional extreme close-up.)
Thanks for the link ADAM. Interesting piece.
Wes Anderson has imitated and stolen unabashedly from many directors. I doubt he minds that a few people have stolen from him, no one has done Wes Anderson as well as Wes Anderson. The difference is Wes Anderson eclipsed some of the work he stole from.
Secondly The Squid and the Whale is essentially a remake/reinterpretation/theft of Murmur of the Heart by Malle so to even compare it to a Wes Anderson film is ridiculous because it is much more connected to Malle than Anderson. Anderson admired Malle and I’d imagine turned Baumbach onto him.
I agree with Justin. Though it is tricky dealing with the words “steal” or “imitate”. Referencing has an underlying art and respect between filmmakers, though I can’t help it when I watch a Michaelangelo Antonini film or a François Truffaut film I see many elements of Royal Tenenbaums (snap zooms and whip pans to emulate the human conflict). Or look at Merchant/Ivory production of “Bombay Talkie”. The music selection almost matches the rickety beauty of Darjeeling Limited’s pictorial rhetoric. Though this is not a bad thing. We are purists in many ways, and it is courteous and admirable to reference break through cinematic storytelling. You can tell when someone knocks off Anderson, and you can tell who respectfully references Anderson, Truffaut, Antonini, Cocteau, Tati and Scorsese (PT> ANDERSON). It’s cinematic atavism. In that vein you are good to go in getting a new perspective across. It just happens when respect is ensued – along with a personal design to see a bit further.
Watch PT Anderson’s “Hard Eight” et. al. hanging camera during the bill to coin sequence. You will ask yourself who robbed who. Anderson or Anderson.
I agree with Justin. Though it is tricky dealing with the words “steal” or “imitate”. Referencing has an underlying art and respect between filmmakers, though I can’t help it when I watch a Michaelangelo Antonini film (Blow up) or a François Truffaut film (Day for Night/Spare Change) I see many elements of Royal Tenenbaums (snap zooms and whip pans to emulate the human conflict). Or look at the Merchant/Ivory production of “Bombay Talkie”. The music selection almost matches the rickety beauty of Darjeeling Limited’s pictorial rhetoric. Though this is not a bad thing. We are purists in many ways, and it is courteous and admirable to reference break through cinematic storytelling. You can tell when someone knocks off Anderson, and you can tell who respectfully references Anderson, Truffaut, Antonini, Cocteau, Tati and Scorsese (PT> ANDERSON). It’s cinematic atavism. In that vein you are good to go in getting a new perspective across. It just happens when respect is ensued – along with a personal design to see a bit further.
Watch PT Anderson’s “Hard Eight” et. al. hanging camera during the bill to coin sequence. You will ask yourself who robbed who. Anderson or Anderson.
Royal Tenenbaums- Hawk flying through city with tracking telephoto lens- I.can’t put my finger on it but where was it taken from? By the way, one of the best shots in recent filmmaking,technical, a cool throwback, and has meaning in the story— better than the flying planes in the parking lot in Rushmore and the entire movie The Hawk Is Dying.
Anderson’s generation has had more experiences in front of the tube or silver screen than in life; what should they reference?
Anderson is more honest than most.
I think anderson steals more blantantly from jd salinger and charles schultz
Lester Burnam
Honestly, I don’t really care who borrows from who or who steals from who or who imitates who, because this is standard practice in the industry. As long as the films bring something memorable to the table and the stories are good, then it works for me. I liked Juno, but I absolutely detested I Love Huckabees and Garden State. I’m sure Guy Ritchie has tried to emulate much of Tarantino’s work, but he still, and always will, imo, suck shit.