[rdlw]

> name a big up and coming director

Villeneuve! Bladerunner and Dune were both beautiful and highly stylized, and his work is enough to sell me on Cleopatra and Rama. Yes he's also in his 50s,but at least that means he's getting huge budgets to do what he wants now.

Wes Anderson is a similar story, though he's been doing it for longer because his films don't need as big a budget. Most people I know would go to see "the new Wes Anderson" sight unseen.

Although I haven't seen his earlier acclaimed work, Bong Joon-ho certainly does not seem to be at "the tail-end of his career".

I think the reason these directors are all in their 50s is that studios aren't willing to trust younger directors as much, but that just means there ARE up and coming directors in their 20s and 30s who are making low-budget short/art films, who have not yet found public appeal.

Expanding to TV series, Alex Hirsch is not technically a director but his name is a major stamp of quality assurance.

Edit: Ari Aster is 36. Jordan Peele is 43 but just beginning his directing career. Roger Eggers is 39. Damien Chazelle is 37. I'm using age here as a metric for being at an early point in their career.

[lordfrito]

I have no problems with Villeneuve... he's more than competent, definitely interesting. But (to me anyways) directors like this aren't the same league as the giants that came before them. I'd trust him enough not to mess up an interesting picture, but he's not really pushing the envelope as much as before. I'll take another Tarantino or Rodriguez, and I doubt we'll see the likes of Kubrick, Welles, Fellini, Tartovsky, Leone, etc. ever again. Heck I'd settle for another Spielberg, he may be a bit saccharin, but he has a killer instinct for the art based on his mastery every single aspect of filmmaking.

> I think the reason these directors are all in their 50s is that studios aren't willing to trust younger directors as much

That's sort of my point... Until recently, every generation had it's great young directors. Seems that is no longer the case. Now you have to play the studio game before they give you a film, and by the time they do you're such a predictable and "safe" player that you can't make (or don't want to make) an edgy / important / risk-taking statement-making kind of film.

Sort of like punk rock, it takes a young and angsty person to take the kind of risks needed to push the envelope in interesting or artistically important ways. Once a director grows up, has kids and hits middle age, well they get a bit more boring, and it comes across in the toned down films they deliver. Lucas and Ridley Scott come to mind as two very capable directors that have "matured" enough to see that what matters is popular appeal and profitability. They start out as artists and end up as producers.

> but that just means there ARE up and coming directors in their 20s and 30s who are making low-budget short/art films, who have not yet found public appeal.

Absolutely! A24 films come to mind of course. They are about all that remains of the old way of making movies. Guys like Ari Aster come to mind. The sad part is I doubt we'll ever get a "mainstream" picture out of him. Hollywood and the masses have moved on from this kind of storytelling. So the "old way" of doing things has been relegated into some niche corner of limited commercial appeal.

Honestly I'm not quite sure how A24 manages to stay in business. They take a lot of chances for the limited budgets they are working with. Not all of their films are great, but all of their misses are interesting. At the end of the day what matters are they making enough money to keep going?

I don't understand how is A24 delivering the kind of high quality pictures that they are, while studios like Band/Empire/FullMoon (which seem to be in the same league, same small/mid budget arena, also seem to be taking the same kind of risks that have limited commercial appeal) can't deliver anything beyond direct-to-video and MST3K quality films? I mean is A24 really profitable? Or is this a labor of love for them? If A24 was profitable you'd think someone in Hollywood would take notice.

Thank god for A24! Any film they produce is an automatic "goes on my watchlist".

Lastly, Jordan Peele is another name that comes to mind. I'm not quite sure how he's crossed over to more mainstream appeal, but I'm glad it's there, his films are great.

Anyhow my 2 cents, I understand this is all a matter of opinion.

[carewell]

To be fair both Kubrick and Tarkovsky probably felt dwarfed by the likes of Vertov, Eisenstein, or even Chaplin. Specifically in terms of pushing the envelope. These were different times with different envelopes.

Villeneuve innovates in a different space, maybe not as philosophical as Tartovsky, and not as symbolic as Fellini... but I don't think that language and that storytelling would work nowadays anyway. There is also Nolan with his very sophisticated world building. Yes it's all pretty mainstream, but so was Kubrick and Tarkovsky (at least in the USSR).

You mention Tarantino (which I personally don't like), but there are many lesser known directors from the 90s-2000s with a fantastic filmography. Kim Ki-Duk and Noel Gaspar come to mind. The world of cinema has not stalled, maybe we need to look outside of Hollywood more eagerly (but then again, neither Fellini nor Tarkovsky where Hollywood).

[lordfrito]

I love the interesting stuff coming out of South Korea. It's great to see foreign directors getting their due again.

I get why Tarantino divides people. He's sort of low brow, lowest common denominator cinema. But he loves spectacle, and he knows how to make things cinematic. In my mind, he's America's answer to Leone. Flashbacks and non linear storytelling, larger than life characters with larger than life conflicts, and use of music as a central part of the film experience. In many ways you could argue he's been copying Leone's style his entire career.

I miss Leone. We got so few films from him. But what films! No one other than Tarntino/Rodriguez (maybe Coen brothers) has really carried any of this kind of cinematic storytelling forward. Tarantino at his best has Leones sense of timing, subtle wit, conflict, and ability to suprise. But they miss most of the subtleties Leone brought, the subtext of humanity and tragedy hiding just below the surface of his films. Tarantino is simply spectacle, Leone was something greater.