The youngest great director to have directed a great film was about 28 when Damien Chazelle was making Whiplash. This is, as everyone says, surprisingly young. Quentin Tarantino was about that same age when he directed Resevoir Dogs, and just as well that was very young. Compare it to many directors who start with their great films in the later half of their thirties, or only start getting good when they're in their 40s. See Denis Villeneuve and Dan Gilroy.
Now compare this to music artists, where it seems generally the older the artist/artists get the worse they get. Many great musical artists seem to peek at around 23 years of age, and very rarely do we get musicians that either get better or stay just as good.
Great directors seem to become greater with age, while great musicians tend to get worse.
Why is this? It can't be just because it takes a long time for a director to be able to earn the trust to finally direct a movie, I've seen many a pretty bad (though not completely horrible) script, shorts, and independent films that wouldn't have been good even with a big budget by now great directors. A couple who come to mind is Christopher Nolan and even Stanley Kubrick.
Please note that yes, I know there's plenty exceptions to this. However, this seems to be the norm from across the board.
I can't think of really too many other ideas, and I haven't found anyone discussing this topic before. Is the film industry just a much more complex and dense form of art that takes more time, possibly then music? Even then, does that mean great directors could've made even better works if they just hurry up and learned their craft faster? Are visual artists and auditory artists just that different from each other? Am I just an idiot who's getting all this wrong? Find out next week if anyone bothers to comment and discuss this unimportant but interesting-to-me topic.
Submitted September 10, 2017 at 12:14AM by sbenthuggin http://ift.tt/2wQ6Dxx
No comments:
Post a Comment