Seen Oppenheimer... pretty good

[octoplex]

21 minutes ago, D4cl00 said:

After that film I noticed [Nolan's] movies gradually got a lot more exposition, dialogue got more heavy-handed and the narrative structure in my opinion was over-complex.

Agreed. And this has happened to several 'superstar' directors. The best examples of this are what happened with Darren Aronofsky and The Fountain (2006); George Lucas and every Star Wars prequel; and Ridley Scott and Prometheus (2012).

What is so bizarre is that it is near-impossible to believe that the director of Alien (1979) was the same director who made Prometheus (2012). The same is the case with George Lucas: To compare Star Wars (1977) with The Phantom Menace (1999), poses some very serious questions about whether Lucas was actually the director of the original Star Wars. Or, demands that we ask: What was done to Lucas that later destroyed every artistic instinct in him?

Imagine asking Eric Clapton, today, to play some guitar and discovering that he has forgotten basic chords. We'd have to ask either: Who destroyed Eric Clapton; or: Did Eric Clapton really record those original albums?

Several movie directors deserve detailed questioning on this topic.

Either way, something odd is afoot in Hollywood...

[MrSMW]

I think the biggest issue is that sometimes the planets just align and you get a hit.

Try to replicate that hit and different circumstances and different times, you just don’t seem to be able to.

Directors, bands, wedding photographers…more often than not, we end up being if not ‘one hit’, then ‘limited hit’ wonders.

So many times, it seems all the factors are there, on paper at least, but for whatever reason, it just doesn’t fire like it should and try as might, cannot work out how to repeat that success consistently.

And I am not sure if we can…

Call it luck, call it fate, call it shit happens, it’s just how stuff seems to work.

[kye]

16 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I think the biggest issue is that sometimes the planets just align and you get a hit.

Try to replicate that hit and different circumstances and different times, you just don’t seem to be able to.

Directors, bands, wedding photographers…more often than not, we end up being if not ‘one hit’, then ‘limited hit’ wonders.

So many times, it seems all the factors are there, on paper at least, but for whatever reason, it just doesn’t fire like it should and try as might, cannot work out how to repeat that success consistently.

And I am not sure if we can…

Call it luck, call it fate, call it shit happens, it’s just how stuff seems to work.

I suspect that it is to do with their own mental and emotional place.  If someone is able to connect to their own emotions deeply then they can express themselves in a way that is authentic, which people respond to because we instinctually recognise it.  It's hard for someone to stay connected with themselves though, especially if they get commercial success during that time, so that's why they often stop making content of this quality.

It also explains why people who are reclusive and take time and release projects far apart can often extend these periods of creative authenticity over long periods.  

That's my take on it anyway.

[octoplex]

15 hours ago, kye said:

I suspect that it is to do with their own mental and emotional place.  If someone is able to connect to their own emotions deeply then they can express themselves in a way that is authentic, which people respond to because we instinctually recognise it.

Absolutely agree with this.

The question, then, is: Do these directors become emotionally-disconnected from themselves because commercial-success is inherently disconnecting? Or, is something more specific happening in Hollywood?

I ask this question from personal experience at the highest-levels of Hollywood. As a former-producer, I was assaulted by a person that most would recognize. The objective of this assault was to stop me making a film that threatened establishment interests; and to displace me from the industry as a whole. Without going into details, I have spoken with others who are also aware that a (it's hard to find a more appropriate word for it) vampire-class roam Hollywood and will target some filmmakers. Those they cannot control, they try to destroy. Fortunately, some they cannot reach.

Personally, I was led into the situation where I was attacked  by a 'friend'. I was definitely not the only person they did this to.

This is why I'm very curious about Hollywood directors who quickly went from high-art to barely-competent. Naturally, I cannot know if these directors simply got, suddenly and extraordinarily, very bad at an art-form they were previously excellent at. Perhaps that is it.

My experience suggests that there is another way that this descent occurs: Artists who challenge and confront society through their filmmaking are targeted for harassment / traumatization.

It's only now, years later, that I am returning to film-making. This time as an 'emerging'-cinematographer, and entirely outside the Hollywood system.

[MrSMW]

17 hours ago, kye said:

I suspect that it is to do with their own mental and emotional place.  If someone is able to connect to their own emotions deeply then they can express themselves in a way that is authentic, which people respond to because we instinctually recognise it.  It's hard for someone to stay connected with themselves though, especially if they get commercial success during that time, so that's why they often stop making content of this quality.

It also explains why people who are reclusive and take time and release projects far apart can often extend these periods of creative authenticity over long periods.  

That's my take on it anyway.

I think that is about the sum of it Kye.

If you can keep your authenticity and not sell out to the mass market or simply for the sake of conforming, I think a few can keep their ball rolling.

I like to think in my own industry, it's how I am still standing and with most of my integrity still intact. Because I didn't follow every fad or chase recognition by my peers, but rather by mostly ever doing what I wanted to do.

I've always said...and stand by it now and will stand by it until the day I choose to quit and that is my client first and foremost is me. I shoot for myself and if others wish to pay me to do that, then we have a deal.

I guess if you are being bankrolled by big studios, very few have the luxury of saying "fcuk you" and take the dollars when offered.

I'm also quite reclusive; part black sheep, part lone wolf 😉

[kye]

9 hours ago, octoplex said:

Absolutely agree with this.

The question, then, is: Do these directors become emotionally-disconnected from themselves because commercial-success is inherently disconnecting? Or, is something more specific happening in Hollywood?

I ask this question from personal experience at the highest-levels of Hollywood. As a former-producer, I was assaulted by a person that most would recognize. The objective of this assault was to stop me making a film that threatened establishment interests; and to displace me from the industry as a whole. Without going into details, I have spoken with others who are also aware that a (it's hard to find a more appropriate word for it) vampire-class roam Hollywood and will target some filmmakers. Those they cannot control, they try to destroy. Fortunately, some they cannot reach.

Personally, I was led into the situation where I was attacked  by a 'friend'. I was definitely not the only person they did this to.

This is why I'm very curious about Hollywood directors who quickly went from high-art to barely-competent. Naturally, I cannot know if these directors simply got, suddenly and extraordinarily, very bad at an art-form they were previously excellent at. Perhaps that is it.

My experience suggests that there is another way that this descent occurs: Artists who challenge and confront society through their filmmaking are targeted for harassment / traumatization.

It's only now, years later, that I am returning to film-making. This time as an 'emerging'-cinematographer, and entirely outside the Hollywood system.

I'm sorry to hear about what you experienced.

I take a pretty pessimistic view (I think of it as realistic, but others might not) that power corrupts, and because those in power are able to avoid consequences, are prone to behaving the way they want to.  Some estimates are that 4% of people are sociopaths and 1% are psychopaths, which puts a lot of people in the situation that if they gain power they will use it to take advantage of others, and to maintain that power they have.  Priority #1 of people who do things that society rejects is to hide that from the world, and priority #1 of powerful people is to keep that power.

We are animals after all, and further to that, we are the descendants of those that "won" at the reproducing game, which doesn't only incentivise being nice and considerate.

In terms of if fame kills creativity, I think that it would if you lose touch with the parts of the human experience we all share.  It's well known that rich / powerful people still suffer from mental illness and commit suicide so those things don't separate you from the human experience, but if you get caught up in ego and trying to act like you're better than everyone else or that your life is somehow better then your work will no longer include the things that we all share..  it takes courage to reach into yourself and connect with the uncomfortable feelings that we would prefer weren't there.

7 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I think that is about the sum of it Kye.

If you can keep your authenticity and not sell out to the mass market or simply for the sake of conforming, I think a few can keep their ball rolling.

I like to think in my own industry, it's how I am still standing and with most of my integrity still intact. Because I didn't follow every fad or chase recognition by my peers, but rather by mostly ever doing what I wanted to do.

I've always said...and stand by it now and will stand by it until the day I choose to quit and that is my client first and foremost is me. I shoot for myself and if others wish to pay me to do that, then we have a deal.

I guess if you are being bankrolled by big studios, very few have the luxury of saying "fcuk you" and take the dollars when offered.

I'm also quite reclusive; part black sheep, part lone wolf 😉

I think it also includes staying connected to why you do something in the first place.  I see lots of good YT people get into YT to be creative and then get caught up in the algorithm or in product reviews and the commercial aspects of it, and because they're not motivated by those things they get burnt out.

I used to think that in life you got energy from sleeping and then doing things during the day would make you tired.  Now I realise that this is true physically, but mental energy comes from doing what you are inspired to do, so if you're mentally tired it's because you're not doing things in accordance with your own values and preferences.

Of course, if you're a creative person running their own business then practical considerations mean that you might have to talk to clients, do the finances, etc, but if you're inspired by the business enough creatively then that motivation should power you through those "required" tasks.  As soon as those things are seriously getting you down, it's because you're not getting mentally inspired elsewhere enough to carry you through those things.

[octoplex]

6 hours ago, kye said:

...power corrupts, and because those in power are able to avoid consequences, are prone to behaving the way they want to... Priority #1 of people who do things that society rejects is to hide that from the world....

Absolutely. Thanks for your kind response. You're right: those who harm others are typically adept at maintaining a public-persona that disguises the monster within. This is very freaky to witness at close-quarters.

On a positive note: I am returning to the movie-industry, determined to challenge it through my film-making. This time I know the behavior-patterns of the 'vampires', and have even become a 'vampire hunter' of sorts. I have studied them carefully.

To return to Nolan's work, I was pleased to read that he refuses to carry a 'smart'-phone, and writes his scripts on a computer that is not connected to the internet. Nolan also does not use social media (more specifically, we could say that social media does not use him.)

I'm not sure how long Nolan has been doing this, but if it's a new policy, perhaps the Nolan of Memento and The Prestige will be slowly returning. It could take several years of concentrated work though. Definitely on the right track.

The future looks bright.

[kye]

2 hours ago, octoplex said:

Absolutely. Thanks for your kind response. You're right: those who harm others are typically adept at maintaining a public-persona that disguises the monster within. This is very freaky to witness at close-quarters.

On a positive note: I am returning to the movie-industry, determined to challenge it through my film-making. This time I know the behavior-patterns of the 'vampires', and have even become a 'vampire hunter' of sorts. I have studied them carefully.

To return to Nolan's work, I was pleased to read that he refuses to carry a 'smart'-phone, and writes his scripts on a computer that is not connected to the internet. Nolan also does not use social media (more specifically, we could say that social media does not use him.)

I'm not sure how long Nolan has been doing this, but if it's a new policy, perhaps the Nolan of Memento and The Prestige will be slowly returning. It could take several years of concentrated work though. Definitely on the right track.

The future looks bright.

Best of luck in your return to the industry! 🙂 

In terms of creativity and movies that are duds, I think there are lots of reasons why someone might go from being great to having a few 'misses'.  Obviously losing touch with our shared humanity is one reason, but it might just be that they are tackling a difficult subject and didn't get it right, or they managed to execute their vision but others just didn't gel with it, or it got watered down by the studios or through creative differences within the team that couldn't be resolved.

We're all very different in how we understand the world and how the various concepts in it are related to each other.  Making a film that reaches a broad audience in a meaningful way but isn't overly simplistic is a very tough call.

There's a whole thing about how the mid-budget movie segment is in rapid decline and studios are now trying to create characters so that instead of an actor being the thing that's famous it'll be Batman / James Bond / etc that's famous and they can just rotate actors through the roles ditching them when they ask for too much money.

I've posted this video before, but it's a good critique of how things have become: