D
Digigenic
Guest
Which director do you think best represents the current and/or future trend in filmmaking? I've listed a series of directors for a poll to see who has their eye on these distant constellations.
G
golden double sprigs
Guest
Aronofsky
Aronofsky
This is something I have thought of before. Aronofsky has an interesting style. I am only familiar with Pi. That film set a new standard for editing and the potentials of film. If I were to choose anyone, it would be Aronofsky. Though I am not familiar with all of those directors.
The only work of Christopher Nolan I have seen is Following but from what I have read, he seems unique enough to be apart of your list.
Who do you say?
Aronofsky
This is something I have thought of before. Aronofsky has an interesting style. I am only familiar with Pi. That film set a new standard for editing and the potentials of film. If I were to choose anyone, it would be Aronofsky. Though I am not familiar with all of those directors.
The only work of Christopher Nolan I have seen is Following but from what I have read, he seems unique enough to be apart of your list.
Who do you say?
D
Digigenic
Guest
To each their own audience...and to each their own director
To each their own audience...and to each their own director
To each their own audience...and to each their own director. I have respect for each of these directors, and I believe that each of them will always have an audience, assuming that they don’t have a sudden urge to add another installment to the Leprechaun series, or do a remake of Battlefield Earth, but who knows, maybe those films will be more appreciated over time?
Anyhow, there are other directors I wanted to list, Mike Mills, Jonas Aukerland, Tarsem Singh, Matthew Barney, but I was limited to ten for the polls. I really like Paul Thomas Anderson though; the quality of his work is so precise, yet natural and beautiful. I almost drool with envy at how well crafted his films are…and how does he manage to get such a great cast for each of his movies?! It’s sickening! But I must admit, I have a fetish for Chris Cunningham's raw style.
Cunningham’s (utilizing Glassworks Artists) unique usage of visual effects and editing makes you look at structure in a different way, the structure of nature, the structure of anatomy, the structure in everything. Many people criticize him for being a recluse and not being consistent, but I think if he were to continue advancing, audiences will never catch up to him. He has yet to do a feature of his own, but he's been involved as a special effects supervisor for high budget films since a young age, like 18 or something. I think his last major VFX contribution was to A.I., back when it was Stanley Kubrick's A.I., not Spielberg's.
His music videos for Aphex Twin, Bjork, and Portishead gave him a lot of early notoriety, but it's difficult to truly measure the scope of his talent because he has yet to do a feature, and if he does, it’s unlikely that his erratic style and isolation will be acceptable within the mainstream. He's expected to do the Neuromancer, a really well known sci-fi novel. It's been said that if the Producers for the Neuromancer aren't able to get Cunningham to direct, they're going to get the Wachowski brothers. Hmmmmm...how's that for a compliment? “If we can't get this one guy to do it, we have to get two!”
Cunningham is something else, but he's not for everyone.
More than likely, we’ll see consistent, high quality work coming from Peter Jackson (he’s a given), Sophia Coppola, Paul Thomas Anderson, Darren Aranovsky, Wes Anderson, Spike Jonze, M. Night Shyamalan and...mmmm, alright...Quentin Tarantino.
I know that there are plenty of other up and coming directors who weren't mentioned within this list, so if you have any other suggestions please feel free...
To each their own audience...and to each their own director
To each their own audience...and to each their own director. I have respect for each of these directors, and I believe that each of them will always have an audience, assuming that they don’t have a sudden urge to add another installment to the Leprechaun series, or do a remake of Battlefield Earth, but who knows, maybe those films will be more appreciated over time?
Anyhow, there are other directors I wanted to list, Mike Mills, Jonas Aukerland, Tarsem Singh, Matthew Barney, but I was limited to ten for the polls. I really like Paul Thomas Anderson though; the quality of his work is so precise, yet natural and beautiful. I almost drool with envy at how well crafted his films are…and how does he manage to get such a great cast for each of his movies?! It’s sickening! But I must admit, I have a fetish for Chris Cunningham's raw style.
Cunningham’s (utilizing Glassworks Artists) unique usage of visual effects and editing makes you look at structure in a different way, the structure of nature, the structure of anatomy, the structure in everything. Many people criticize him for being a recluse and not being consistent, but I think if he were to continue advancing, audiences will never catch up to him. He has yet to do a feature of his own, but he's been involved as a special effects supervisor for high budget films since a young age, like 18 or something. I think his last major VFX contribution was to A.I., back when it was Stanley Kubrick's A.I., not Spielberg's.
His music videos for Aphex Twin, Bjork, and Portishead gave him a lot of early notoriety, but it's difficult to truly measure the scope of his talent because he has yet to do a feature, and if he does, it’s unlikely that his erratic style and isolation will be acceptable within the mainstream. He's expected to do the Neuromancer, a really well known sci-fi novel. It's been said that if the Producers for the Neuromancer aren't able to get Cunningham to direct, they're going to get the Wachowski brothers. Hmmmmm...how's that for a compliment? “If we can't get this one guy to do it, we have to get two!”
Cunningham is something else, but he's not for everyone.
More than likely, we’ll see consistent, high quality work coming from Peter Jackson (he’s a given), Sophia Coppola, Paul Thomas Anderson, Darren Aranovsky, Wes Anderson, Spike Jonze, M. Night Shyamalan and...mmmm, alright...Quentin Tarantino.
I know that there are plenty of other up and coming directors who weren't mentioned within this list, so if you have any other suggestions please feel free...
D
Digigenic
Guest
I forgot to comment on Del Torro. Guillermo Del Torro, I believe he's done a very good job up to this point in his career, and I expect to see some really astonishing work coming from him.
D
Digigenic
Guest
Cycles are meant to be broken…
Cycles are meant to be broken…
Cycles are meant to be broken…
There's a noticeable difference that comes between Barney and many of the other up and coming filmmakers I've mentioned. Barney achieved most of his recognition through the "art" community as oppose to the film community. Although, his work can be analyzed on both fronts, which is why I guess he's such a fun figure to explore for such discussions in film. I also think that certain elements of his films give way to ridicule for being too "artistic", and failing to say what he really means. His work can be looked at like an experimental student film piece that just kept going and going and going for the sake of going and going and going.
While I haven't been able to view all of his work, from what I have seen, he certainly shows promise in being able to do things that others wouldn't dream, or that others would dream, but wouldn't dare to put it on screen. For most people, it's the aesthetic appeal of his work that gets him all of the attention, primarily because the symbolic significance behind the visual is either hard to find, or thrown in your face and becomes more of a distraction. It's difficult for people to watch his work because he toys with you in that regard, drawing your eye to things that are pointless, when there's something else of significance you should be focused on. Is he doing it intentionally? Or does he not know how to give an audience what they want? Or does he really know what they want by giving them something they don't want so that they'll endlessly publicize his work and its lack of sense? This is when I really start to lose interest in it, because when I see the dog and pony show behind the dog and pony show, and I see how well connected the strings are for his work to gain instant recognition no matter what, I can’t help but think it’s all just a bunch of crap…even though the crap still looks good.
On one hand, I think Barney's work is beautiful and insightful, on the other, I think he's just some guy whose status affords him certain advantages, like being able to do whatever he wants and calling it art. But then again, that can characterize quite a few artists out there.
One thing is for certain, there's no such thing as "perfect art", or the "perfect artist", and even though his appeal is great, it doesn't constitute such a labeling. Perhaps he's an artist with perfect intent? But, I don't think he or his artwork are perfect by any stretch of the imagination.
Cycles are meant to be broken…
Cycles are meant to be broken…
There's a noticeable difference that comes between Barney and many of the other up and coming filmmakers I've mentioned. Barney achieved most of his recognition through the "art" community as oppose to the film community. Although, his work can be analyzed on both fronts, which is why I guess he's such a fun figure to explore for such discussions in film. I also think that certain elements of his films give way to ridicule for being too "artistic", and failing to say what he really means. His work can be looked at like an experimental student film piece that just kept going and going and going for the sake of going and going and going.
While I haven't been able to view all of his work, from what I have seen, he certainly shows promise in being able to do things that others wouldn't dream, or that others would dream, but wouldn't dare to put it on screen. For most people, it's the aesthetic appeal of his work that gets him all of the attention, primarily because the symbolic significance behind the visual is either hard to find, or thrown in your face and becomes more of a distraction. It's difficult for people to watch his work because he toys with you in that regard, drawing your eye to things that are pointless, when there's something else of significance you should be focused on. Is he doing it intentionally? Or does he not know how to give an audience what they want? Or does he really know what they want by giving them something they don't want so that they'll endlessly publicize his work and its lack of sense? This is when I really start to lose interest in it, because when I see the dog and pony show behind the dog and pony show, and I see how well connected the strings are for his work to gain instant recognition no matter what, I can’t help but think it’s all just a bunch of crap…even though the crap still looks good.
On one hand, I think Barney's work is beautiful and insightful, on the other, I think he's just some guy whose status affords him certain advantages, like being able to do whatever he wants and calling it art. But then again, that can characterize quite a few artists out there.
One thing is for certain, there's no such thing as "perfect art", or the "perfect artist", and even though his appeal is great, it doesn't constitute such a labeling. Perhaps he's an artist with perfect intent? But, I don't think he or his artwork are perfect by any stretch of the imagination.
D
Digigenic
Guest
So far, Tarantino appears to be in the lead...
:shock:
Anyone care to stand up for the other directors, surely someone out there supports Jonze, Paul or Wes Anderson, Coppola...
I'm surprised Peter Jackson hasn't seen a single vote. Was LOTR not good enough?
Guillermo Del Torro is right up there with Peter Jackson, he hasn't seen a vote either...
Where's the love?
:shock:
Anyone care to stand up for the other directors, surely someone out there supports Jonze, Paul or Wes Anderson, Coppola...
I'm surprised Peter Jackson hasn't seen a single vote. Was LOTR not good enough?
Guillermo Del Torro is right up there with Peter Jackson, he hasn't seen a vote either...
Where's the love?
Aurora_Blacke
New member
The thing is, I think Sophia Coppola is the director of the future. Lost and Translation (even though I thought it was abit blan and confusing at times) was beautifully shot and had very good directing. My vote goes to Peter Jackson though. He worked his a$$ off on the LOTR movies and they came out wonderful. I think that people are going to notice Jackson a bit more now and appreciate the directing in, not only, the LOTR films but also in some of his zombe movies.
I love Quentin Tarantino. He has such an imagination on him that I love but my vote is still for Peter Jackson.
Aurora
I love Quentin Tarantino. He has such an imagination on him that I love but my vote is still for Peter Jackson.
Aurora
D
Digigenic
Guest
Sofia, Sofia…oh so real is my Sofia…
Sofia, Sofia…oh so real is my Sofia…
Sofia, Sofia…oh so real is my Sofia…
The tones and textures of artistry and honesty that compose Sofia Coppola’s films have seduced me to absolute infatuation.
It's not uncommon to infatuate oneself with the aesthetic appeal of any film as of late, but the emotional depth found within Sofia Coppola’s films leaves you begging for connection. Connection with loved ones, connection with the world, connection with yourself.
Sofia is the future…
Sofia, Sofia…oh so real is my Sofia…
Sofia, Sofia…oh so real is my Sofia…
The tones and textures of artistry and honesty that compose Sofia Coppola’s films have seduced me to absolute infatuation.
It's not uncommon to infatuate oneself with the aesthetic appeal of any film as of late, but the emotional depth found within Sofia Coppola’s films leaves you begging for connection. Connection with loved ones, connection with the world, connection with yourself.
Sofia is the future…
D
Digigenic
Guest
:? I'm not familiar with In The Mood For Love, was Lost in Translation a derivative of this movie?
it said that Sofia Coppola mentioned and thanked Wong Kar-Wai because of his influence....
Wong Kar-Wai is the director and producter of "Happy Together" , "in the mooon for love" ....
he also wrote the screenplays.
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/02/wong.html
Wong Kar-Wai is the director and producter of "Happy Together" , "in the mooon for love" ....
he also wrote the screenplays.
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/02/wong.html
M. Night Shyamalan
Peter Jackson
Quentin Tarantino
These three gentlemen know how to tell a story. I don't think they represent whatever it was you asking about. But in my opinion these three men are men to be studied because they know how to tell a good story. Thats what film making is all about, telling a good story. Unfortunately that sometimes goes unappreciated when box office sales come into play. I have so much to say I can't say it. lol. Oh who were those other people you listed I had to look them up on the IMDB and looking at the list of movies they represented why were they on the list
:wink:
Peter Jackson
Quentin Tarantino
These three gentlemen know how to tell a story. I don't think they represent whatever it was you asking about. But in my opinion these three men are men to be studied because they know how to tell a good story. Thats what film making is all about, telling a good story. Unfortunately that sometimes goes unappreciated when box office sales come into play. I have so much to say I can't say it. lol. Oh who were those other people you listed I had to look them up on the IMDB and looking at the list of movies they represented why were they on the list
:wink:
D
Digigenic
Guest
RESons RESons RESons...
RESons RESons RESons...
First and foremost, Chris Cunningham, Spike Jonze, Mike Mills (not listed), and Michel Gondry (not listed) are all very talented artists who are strikingly distinct and belong in a category all their own. Actually, they already do, “The Director’s Label”. Pick up any issue of RES Magazine and you're likely to see something of significance pertaining to any one of these three guys and their work. With Cunningham, Jonze, Mills, and Gondry, it's obvious that they aren't textbook filmmakers, they aren't playing it safe, and they for damn sure aren't sacrificing creativity for mass-market appeal, at least not yet. These guys are the real deal. It never fails for their work to yield phenomenal results, and that just amazes me.
I strongly suggest researching and viewing some these directors’ works. The Director’s Label/Palm Pictures has a collector series of these directors’ earlier works. I urge you to at least look at those.
Michel Gondry directed Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, so you can easily see that at the theater to get an idea of what I’m talking about. Pure genius man, there’s no other way to describe it.
Now…Sophia Coppola… Seriously, do I have to explain? Searching the last name in IMDB alone practically gives you a list of individuals all throughout the industry to reveal a family hierarchy of directors, cinematographers, actors, producers, writers, etc. Not just by design, but also by her own virtue she’s proving to be a filmmaker for the future.
On to Paul Thomas Anderson.
Paul Thomas Anderson has a very definitive style of filmmaking, not to the “Hitchcock Emulator” degree of Shyamalan, but he's got an edge that makes his films very appealing. Magnolia was quite an achievement, and Punch Drunk Love was simply beautiful. Paul Thomas Anderson also seems to have the ability to attract all-star casts, which can sometimes be disastrous for other films, but for him, it's perfectly orchestrated. The kid's got talent.
Wes Anderson (no relation to Paul Thomas Anderson) is without a doubt one of my favorite writers and directors.
He often works with the same actors, and as a result, the actors are very natural in the characters they play, and they all undoubtedly give great performances. Wes Anderson’s films ritualistically employ a detached comedy tempo, which is hard to describe, but it’s humorous nonetheless. I strongly suggest seeing Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and The Aquatic Life (to be released).
Darren Aronovsky holds nothing back; giving you everything he’s got to keep your eyes from wondering away from the screen. Certain sequences within his films are edited very unpredictably and create a unique tempo that compliments the gritty emotional tones that make his films feel as raw as they do real.
Guillermo Del Torro.
If you haven’t been watching this guy, I suggest you start right away. Here is a director who simply knows how to make a damn good movie. His next major film to be released is Hellboy, an obvious Hollywood blockbuster. But, I also suggest you see The Devil’s Backbone, and Mimic.
Hope that alleviates any of your concerns.
RESons RESons RESons...
First and foremost, Chris Cunningham, Spike Jonze, Mike Mills (not listed), and Michel Gondry (not listed) are all very talented artists who are strikingly distinct and belong in a category all their own. Actually, they already do, “The Director’s Label”. Pick up any issue of RES Magazine and you're likely to see something of significance pertaining to any one of these three guys and their work. With Cunningham, Jonze, Mills, and Gondry, it's obvious that they aren't textbook filmmakers, they aren't playing it safe, and they for damn sure aren't sacrificing creativity for mass-market appeal, at least not yet. These guys are the real deal. It never fails for their work to yield phenomenal results, and that just amazes me.
I strongly suggest researching and viewing some these directors’ works. The Director’s Label/Palm Pictures has a collector series of these directors’ earlier works. I urge you to at least look at those.
Michel Gondry directed Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, so you can easily see that at the theater to get an idea of what I’m talking about. Pure genius man, there’s no other way to describe it.
Now…Sophia Coppola… Seriously, do I have to explain? Searching the last name in IMDB alone practically gives you a list of individuals all throughout the industry to reveal a family hierarchy of directors, cinematographers, actors, producers, writers, etc. Not just by design, but also by her own virtue she’s proving to be a filmmaker for the future.
On to Paul Thomas Anderson.
Paul Thomas Anderson has a very definitive style of filmmaking, not to the “Hitchcock Emulator” degree of Shyamalan, but he's got an edge that makes his films very appealing. Magnolia was quite an achievement, and Punch Drunk Love was simply beautiful. Paul Thomas Anderson also seems to have the ability to attract all-star casts, which can sometimes be disastrous for other films, but for him, it's perfectly orchestrated. The kid's got talent.
Wes Anderson (no relation to Paul Thomas Anderson) is without a doubt one of my favorite writers and directors.
He often works with the same actors, and as a result, the actors are very natural in the characters they play, and they all undoubtedly give great performances. Wes Anderson’s films ritualistically employ a detached comedy tempo, which is hard to describe, but it’s humorous nonetheless. I strongly suggest seeing Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and The Aquatic Life (to be released).
Darren Aronovsky holds nothing back; giving you everything he’s got to keep your eyes from wondering away from the screen. Certain sequences within his films are edited very unpredictably and create a unique tempo that compliments the gritty emotional tones that make his films feel as raw as they do real.
Guillermo Del Torro.
If you haven’t been watching this guy, I suggest you start right away. Here is a director who simply knows how to make a damn good movie. His next major film to be released is Hellboy, an obvious Hollywood blockbuster. But, I also suggest you see The Devil’s Backbone, and Mimic.
Hope that alleviates any of your concerns.
D
Digigenic
Guest
Yeah, I previously sited Gondry as a choice I'd like to have, but we're limited to posting only 10 choices in the polls.
I do believe Michel and his brother "Oliver Twist" Gondry are having a major impact on the future of filmmaking.
Another person that recently surfaced to my attention is Zach Braff.
I do believe Michel and his brother "Oliver Twist" Gondry are having a major impact on the future of filmmaking.
Another person that recently surfaced to my attention is Zach Braff.
The Company
New member
A director of the future?
I had to go with Peter Jackson. Film is becoming more and more about who can do what on a computer, and Jackson is leading this field. Not that he doesnt have the ability to tell a great story too, but it was his CGI work on LOTR that got him my vote.
I had to go with Peter Jackson. Film is becoming more and more about who can do what on a computer, and Jackson is leading this field. Not that he doesnt have the ability to tell a great story too, but it was his CGI work on LOTR that got him my vote.
I don't know: I love Peter Jackson's movies, but I've never seen him as a great director. Great at doing impressive effects on low budgets (just look at 'Bad Taste', or the time-travel effects at the end of 'The Frighteners'), but IMHO he's more of a craftsman director than a genius.
Huh? Pretty much everything good in any Tarantino movie I've seen is ripped off from other movies.
Huh? Pretty much everything good in any Tarantino movie I've seen is ripped off from other movies.
D
DerekEastham
Guest
This is a great poll... however, I wont be able to vote in it.
Many of these directors represent entirely different areas of cinema & filmmaking.
Peter Jackson appears to embody the current & future trends of the major fantasy/sci-fi/epic brand of filmmaking. His revolutionary decision to do all three films at once... as well as his use of "biggatures" in lieu of entirely digital landscapes really helped sell the films in an age where the digital realm just isn't ready to recreate such an earthy landcscape in a fully realistic nature.
Sophia Coppola is a brilliant storyteller, but her filmmaking style is very similar to the style of George Lucas. She's a very visual filmmaker. Her stories are told almost as silent films, everything can be understood from the pictures... the dialogue, while still an important part of the actors performances, is almost an afterthought. Were the film entirely silent, we would still know what was going on & how they moved from point a to point b. Her particular use of this visual style of filmmaking is something that is slowly moving into the drama/comedy genre... and perhaps this is where it will go for a time... but not likely a permanent trend. This will likely be more for the most artistic of filmmakers who approach the dramatic genre.
Quentin Tarantino has a unique style all his own. While it is one that many people are trying to mimic... no-one else has quiet accomplished anything quite like what he has. His particular style has brought out an entirely new type of film... his style & approach has and will continue to become a regular part of cinema now and in the future.
M. Night Shaymalan is his own kind of brilliant director. However, like Sophia, he has a lot in common (artistically) with another famous director, Hitchcock. In every generation we will have a new hitchcock... it's just destiny that someone is able to speak suspense & horror to the masses on such a sucessful scale... so really, there's nothign new except his own particular approach (which is something every director can claim). Don't get me wrong, I think he's brilliant... but his approach is nothing quite as extrordinary as some of the other filmmakers on the list.
Ok... so that's my 4-cents of a blurb on this issue...
I'm not as familiar with the other directors, though I do know who they are... I just don't know enough about them artistically to make an informed opinion.
Many of these directors represent entirely different areas of cinema & filmmaking.
Peter Jackson appears to embody the current & future trends of the major fantasy/sci-fi/epic brand of filmmaking. His revolutionary decision to do all three films at once... as well as his use of "biggatures" in lieu of entirely digital landscapes really helped sell the films in an age where the digital realm just isn't ready to recreate such an earthy landcscape in a fully realistic nature.
Sophia Coppola is a brilliant storyteller, but her filmmaking style is very similar to the style of George Lucas. She's a very visual filmmaker. Her stories are told almost as silent films, everything can be understood from the pictures... the dialogue, while still an important part of the actors performances, is almost an afterthought. Were the film entirely silent, we would still know what was going on & how they moved from point a to point b. Her particular use of this visual style of filmmaking is something that is slowly moving into the drama/comedy genre... and perhaps this is where it will go for a time... but not likely a permanent trend. This will likely be more for the most artistic of filmmakers who approach the dramatic genre.
Quentin Tarantino has a unique style all his own. While it is one that many people are trying to mimic... no-one else has quiet accomplished anything quite like what he has. His particular style has brought out an entirely new type of film... his style & approach has and will continue to become a regular part of cinema now and in the future.
M. Night Shaymalan is his own kind of brilliant director. However, like Sophia, he has a lot in common (artistically) with another famous director, Hitchcock. In every generation we will have a new hitchcock... it's just destiny that someone is able to speak suspense & horror to the masses on such a sucessful scale... so really, there's nothign new except his own particular approach (which is something every director can claim). Don't get me wrong, I think he's brilliant... but his approach is nothing quite as extrordinary as some of the other filmmakers on the list.
Ok... so that's my 4-cents of a blurb on this issue...
I'm not as familiar with the other directors, though I do know who they are... I just don't know enough about them artistically to make an informed opinion.
Similar threads
Network Sponsors
