I was in class today when the topic of creative capacity came up and my prof noted that the part of the brain that manifests creativity becomes weaker as pressure builds in the brain, which happens to all of us with age...sorry for the bill nye explanation but it kinda struck me today. Anyways, that pretty much solved the riddle, at least for me, as to why so many great filmmakers (not all of course because i know some smartass is gonna post the cover for eyes wide shut or some shit) end up losing their shit when they get old...coppola for example and even scrocese to some degree, have lost the edge..............comments on the topic?
For conversations sake, what filmmakers have really lost their shit with age, in your opinion?
TIM BURTON!!!
not even. more like Godard, Lumet, Allen.. these are great ppl who lost their shit.
there's lots who havn't tho, like Altman. this is gonna be like..
from Homer's Barbershop Quartet (season 5)
[homer is explaining how the Be Sharps lost their popularity..]
Homer: We were about to learn an iron law
of show business.. what goes up must come down.
Lisa: What about Bob Hope? He's been
consistently popular for over fifty years.
Bart: So's Sinatra.
Homer: Well, anyway, we were all getting tired of --
Lisa: Dean Martin still packs 'em in.
Bart: Ditto Tom Jones.
Homer: Shut up!
Robert Altman and Clint Eastwood are both in their 70's, and they are as great as ever. If Gosford Park and Mystic River represent the work of old, washed-up directors, we need more old, washed-up directors.
william friedkin
Quote from: Pnot even. more like Godard... these are great ppl who lost their shit.
seen In Praise Of Love??? It's among his best work...
tony kaye....
.john huges...
lawrence kadsen...
i agree w/ freidkin...
craven.....
Quote from: SoNowThenseen In Praise Of Love???
yeah, it was forgettable. godard has not aged well.
Quote from: NEON MERCURYtony kaye....
u just killed me.
i think its more about circumstance than science -- i really think theres a psychological effect that takes over after you've "secured" yourself as a acclaimed director. theres no way scorsese can re-create the desperation and risk that the process of taxi driver brought to his life -- when he made that film he was marting scorsese -- now hes MARTIN SCORSESE AKA MARTY AKA THE GREATEST LIVING DIRECTOR -- the sense of urgency is inherently out the window. i dont think the players change with age, the game does -- once you get into the realm of 100 million dollar features the creative choke collar becomes more and more restrictive. this is obviously one example, but i think it can be applied to many -- i think coppola has floundered in his own quest to become this self-proclaimed mogul. i think it became less and less about the excitement of creating and more and more about obtaining "fat cat" status -- assumptions, yes, but i dont think its too far from truth.
Yeah, that's kinda how I feel. Everybody's gotta peak at some point. That doesn't mean they "lose it" after that. I agree that Marty probably peaked with Taxi Driver, though some could argue Raging Bull. But I still think every film he does (minus Cape ididthisjusttomakemoneysoicouldmakebetterfilms Fear) is brilliant.
***
And Godard has not lost it. The moviegoers have lost their appreciation of him -- that's the only damn thing that's been lost.
Quote from: SoNowThenYeah, that's kinda how I feel. Everybody's gotta peak at some point. That doesn't mean they "lose it" after that. I agree that Marty probably peaked with Taxi Driver, though some could argue Raging Bull. But I still think every film he does (minus Cape ididthisjusttomakemoneysoicouldmakebetterfilms Fear) is brilliant.
***
And Godard has not lost it. The moviegoers have lost their appreciation of him -- that's the only damn thing that's been lost.
um, did you see last temptation of christ, age of innocence, goodfellas, casino, kundun? how could you put the peak, if such a thing exists (i don't think we should judge quite yet) at raging bull?
coppola
kubrick
Quote from: ©bradQuote from: SoNowThenYeah, that's kinda how I feel. Everybody's gotta peak at some point. That doesn't mean they "lose it" after that. I agree that Marty probably peaked with Taxi Driver, though some could argue Raging Bull. But I still think every film he does (minus Cape ididthisjusttomakemoneysoicouldmakebetterfilms Fear) is brilliant.
***
And Godard has not lost it. The moviegoers have lost their appreciation of him -- that's the only damn thing that's been lost.
um, did you see last temptation of christ, age of innocence, goodfellas, casino, kundun? how could you put the peak, if such a thing exists (i don't think we should judge quite yet) at raging bull?
I agree, all amazing films. I love each one you mentioned. And that seems to prove my point.
I just think that, for each great artist, they have this unconscious moment of work, when the alchemy just happens, and they get a product that they will never be able to equal. But then when they can't people start going on about "losing it", which I think is bunk.
Now, Coppola is a good example of losing it. Does his masterpiece, Apocalypse Now, then does what.... junk, in some forms or another, up until now. Some decent films, yes, but no great films. Marty, however, is cited for TD and RB, then goes on to make all the films you mentioned. Even if you wanna peak him at Goodfellas, look at all the brilliance he's done since then. And mark my words, there
will be a critical re-evaluation of Kundun, Bringing Out The Dead, and hopefully, Gangs Of New York.
EDIT: I'll tell you who lost it -- Bob Rafelson. Five Easy Pieces and King Of Marvin Gardens are just amazing, and then he follows up with 25 straight years of shit-sandwich...
QuoteMarriage tames geniuses and criminals
Creative genius and crime express themselves early in men but both are turned off almost like a tap if a man gets married and has children, a New Zealand study finds.
Satoshi Kanazawa, a psychologist at the University of Canterbury, compiled a database of the biographies of 280 great scientists, noting their age at the time when they made their greatest work.
The data remarkably concur with the brutal observation made by Albert Einstein, who wrote in 1942: "A person who has not made his great contribution to science before the age of 30 will never do so."
"Scientific productivity indeed fades with age," Kanazawa says.
"Two-thirds (of all scientists) will have made their most significant contributions before their mid-thirties."
But, regardless of age, the great minds who married virtually kissed goodbye to making any further glorious additions to their CV.
Within five years of making their nuptial vows, nearly a quarter of married scientists had made their last significant contribution to history's Hall of Fame.
"Scientists rather quickly desist (from their careers) after their marriage, while unmarried scientists continue to make great scientific contributions later in their lives," says Kanazawa.
The energy of youth and the dampening effect of marriage, he adds, are also remarkably similar among geniuses in music, painting and writing, as well as in criminal activity.
Previous studies have documented that delinquents are overwhelmingly male, and usually start out on the road to crime in their teens.
But those who marry well subsequently stop committing crime, whereas criminals at the same age who remain unmarried tend to continue their unlawful careers.
Kanazawa suggests "a single psychological mechanism" is responsible for this: the competitive edge among young men to fight for glory and gain the attention of women. That craving drives the all-important male hormone, testosterone.
After a man settles down, the testosterone level falls, as does his creative output, Kanazawa theorises.
The study appears in in the August issue of the Journal of Research in Personality , and has also been reported in the British weekly New Scientist .
what do you say about this?
What do you think some lost it and others didn't?
I know some croatian writer who is 68 years old, lives dull life with his wife, has his everyday routine like other man of his age, but writes even better?
I think Scorsese will never top Mean Streets and Taxi Driver. Some of his subsequent films, like Raging Bull and GoodFellas and Casino, are better than 99% of all the American films out there, but they still aren't as sublime as his 70's films. I think Scorsese has made commercial films like Color of Money and Cape Fear just so he can continue to make more personal films, but I think doing films for the wrong reasons can compromise your integrity.
I think Altman has had a long, productive career because he has never compromised his integrity. When the 80's hit, directors who were great in the 70's like Bob Rafelson, Brian De Palma and Michael Ritchie started making bad studio films, simply to keep working. Altman went underground, eschewing the studio system entirely, making low-budget films that he had complete artistic control over. When the 90's rolled around, Altman was part of the growing independent movement, whereas a lot of his contemporaries from the 70's were either not working or had completely sold out.
I think there is such a thing as artistic karma, and guys like Altman and Godard and even John Sayles have continued to have fertile careers because they stay pure to their respective visions, irregardless of marketplace concerns.
when you can't insult somebody, say he'll never top himself.
Demme
DePalma
Reiner
I would say Schumacher, but he's never had it to begin with
and Burton has NOT lost his shit, by any means.
Quote from: j_scott_stroup04
I would say Schumacher, but he's never had it to begin with
you didn't like Phone Booth?
actually...to be honest...that ranks in his "Worth a Look" category (going by "They Shoot Pictures" ratings)...
I just don't like him...the only movie I like by him is The Lost boys.
Schumacher breaks down likes this:
Recommended: The Lost Boys
Worth a Look: Phonebooth, Batman Forever
Approach With Caution: 8mm, A Time to Kill
Dud: Batman and Robin, The Client, Bad Company
Which would give him about a 4 (out of 10), going by They Shoot Pictures again. That puts him below average in my book.
I forgot to say that Lucas has lost his shit
Quote from: j_scott_stroup04I forgot to say that Lucas has lost his shit
Lucas never had it to begin with.
hahaha :lol: ....if it wasn't for American Graffiti....I'd probably agree with ya!
What about Ridley Scott? My film teacher PRAISED his earlier film The Duellists as well as Blade Runner, though I have never personally cared for Ridley at all. Do you think he's lost any creativity he may have had, or did he just "sell out" as some would say?
Quote from: ranemaka13What about Ridley Scott? My film teacher PRAISED his earlier film The Duellists as well as Blade Runner, though I have never personally cared for Ridley at all. Do you think he's lost any creativity he may have had, or did he just "sell out" as some would say?
ridley hasnt soled out in the least -- hes always been a big studio director-- i think hes had solid consistency.
Quote from: j_scott_stroup04Demme
DePalma
Reiner
I would say Schumacher, but he's never had it to begin with
and Burton has NOT lost his shit, by any means.
demme yes, but i have a feeling he's gonna make a hell of a comeback in the next few years........
DePalma looked as tho he did, but I think he went back to being good ol' depalma with femme fatale........anyone else like that as much as me?
reiner lost it years ago and doesn't look as if he's comin back anytime soon
schumacher has no point in being discussed here (not that he's bad, but he never had his shit to begin with)
Burton is still great
agree with everything you said...except for the Femme Fatale thing. Only because I haven't seen it. It does seem like the good ol' DePalma though. His last few films have just left such a bad taste in my mouth, it's hard for me to even get the initiative to watch his older, good stuff.
John Woo has lost his shit...back in the 80's, he was badass, then he did Hard Target, wrong choice, then he did Broken Arrow, slight comeback, Face/Off, total comeback, Mission Impossible 2, staying where he's good at, but kind of knocked him back to where he was prior to Face/Off, Windtalkers, sucks, start of the down slope, Paycheck, looks like regurgitated shit. His career is so much like a freakin' rollercoaster.
....this schumacher hate is realy ill-advised.....
consider these films.....
falling down
flatliners
phonebooth.
8mm
the lost boys
tigerland....
those are 6 solid films........IMO...........
........and annother thing....
NEON'S RISING STAR PREDICTION......shea whigham......
this guy is badass....he was in tigerland ..he played the psychotic onne.....and then was great in all the real girls..as kip.......and schumacher found this guy.....but you guys donn't have to praise my genious yet.......
Quote from: j_scott_stroup04John Woo has lost his shit...
most definitely
Quote from: NEON MERCURY....this schumacher hate is realy ill-advised.....
i'm sorry but its all justified.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wiebeworld.com%2Fmedia%2Ffinbat4.jpg&hash=ecf6fcb8932a3cab3f8e0647918ad1add1e86c4f)
i dont care if he did citizen kane, he also did this and thats inexcusable
haha
Black Hawk Down is the first Ridley Scott film I ever really liked. His earlier films seemed to be exercises in flashy cinematography, not cinema.
Femme Fatale, in my opinion, is not a return to form for De Palma. It is more like an excuse to shoot lots of nude scenes.
Quote from: soixanteFemme Fatale, in my opinion, is not a return to form for De Palma. It is more like an excuse to shoot lots of nude scenes.
so were most of his other great movies lol....well it was certainly more DePalma than fuckin Mission To Mars (*puke*)
Quote from: soixanteHis earlier films seemed to be exercises in flashy cinematography, not cinema.
Go watch "Thema & Louise".
Quote from: soixanteBlack Hawk Down is the first Ridley Scott film I ever really liked. His earlier films seemed to be exercises in flashy cinematography, not cinema
And Black Hawk Down isn't?
i have always been satifsfied with scott's movies. they're flashy and not made with an artistic spirit, but i always enjoy them as entertainment. he always produces digestible, blockbuster entertainment that isn't offensive to the intelligence. i always liked his Alien better than Cameron's Aliens. And White Squall was touching and truly tragic.
steven soudenburgh lost it.
Tarantino had a theory from the Charlie Rose interview about great directors that'd lost it that made a lotta sense to me. It's pretty long so you should read it for yourself over here:
http://tarantino.webds.de/tarantino/archive/interviews/charlierose_int.htm
it's about filmmakers who did a very personal film that bombed and the their careers went down.
Thanks for posting that. I was hooked from the moment I started reading.
Quote from: ®edlumThanks for posting that. I was hooked from the moment I started reading.
it's all on the Pulp Fiction SE DVD... in case you're interested. Quentin wears an amazing astroboy green tie.
Crap. Obviously I didn't look very closely at the special features, then.
If filmmakers can lose it, they can regain it. Soderbergh's first film was great, his next two (Kafka, The Underneath) sucked. He went back to square one, making a very low budget, experimental film (Schizopolis), then found his footing making crime dramas (Out of Sight, The Limey, Traffic).
Same with Gus Van Sant, who has gone back to his experimental, low budget roots with Gerry and Elephant after doing a few Hollywood major studio films.
I'm waiting for Francis Ford Coppola to regain it.
Psycho was experimental.
yeah too bad he felt the need
Quote from: soixanteIf filmmakers can lose it, they can regain it. Soderbergh's first film was great, his next two (Kafka, The Underneath) sucked. He went back to square one, making a very low budget, experimental film (Schizopolis), then found his footing making crime dramas (Out of Sight, The Limey, Traffic)..
you're forgetting the recent abominations of oceans 11, full frontal, and erin brockovich.
Quote from: pookiethecat
you're forgetting the recent abominations of oceans 11, full frontal, and erin brockovich.
Abominations? How the...?
how the...are they not abominations? oceans 11 and erin brockovich are two of the most smugly self satisfied, mediocre, weak films in recent memory...and full frontal is universally regarded as a piece of shit.
oceans 11 was fun. i loved it. the starpower coming off the screen nearly blinded me, and my immediate reaction was 'i wish they'd make more of these'. not neccesarily sequels, but more movies with this group of actors. i prefer it to schizopolis 100 times over. (i just realized it may be hard to take someone seriously who looks like a vampire hunter...)
My avatar either came at the right or wrong time. :yabbse-undecided:
Oceans 11 - definately fun.
Erin - it was alright. definately not an abomination. I just felt it had this Julia Roberts oscar vehicle thing about it.
Full Frontal - I really love. It's fresh. "universally regarded as a piece of shit". What does that have to do with your opinion?
Just thought your criticism was very harsh and unjustified.
http://www.xixax.com/viewforum.php?f=31
you're right. perhaps it was a little harsh. (forgive my exam-week-induced temperment). but we're talking about filmmakers who lost their shit, and i think soderbergh has as evidenced by my opinions on the past 3 films he's made. erin brockovich was insidious and insulting, featuring one of the worst examples of oscar-baiting ever. and oceans 11 was a bunch of egos mugging in a terrible, lifeless story. full frontal was a movie with hollywood types superficially deprecating their hollywood image, but it lacked self-examination, and the egos were that much more condescending.
Quote from: pookiethecatyou're right. perhaps it was a little harsh. (forgive my exam-week-induced temperment). but we're talking about filmmakers who lost their shit, and i think soderbergh has as evidenced by my opinions on the past 3 films he's made. erin brockovich was insidious and insulting, featuring one of the worst examples of oscar-baiting ever. and oceans 11 was a bunch of egos mugging in a terrible, lifeless story. full frontal was a movie with hollywood types superficially deprecating their hollywood image, but it lacked self-examination, and the egos were that much more condescending.
Soderbergh hasn't lost squat... as recently as 2000, he came out blasting with a very masterful film that was Traffic, and from that point, he made a conscious choice to do big, slick Hollywood Productions (Erin, Ocean's 11). He's mentioned many times about wanting to shift gears from studio, to small, indie-type films, hence Full Frontal, which was hardly an abomination. He did a 180 on Hollywood with his version of Solaris, which was the work of a gifted filmmaker- a very slow, psychological, sci-fi drama, love-story, which didn't revert to standard, melodramtically- accessible tripe that Hollywood generally churns out. IMO, it was quite ballsy a film to make considering he has become quite a bankable "Hollywood" director. He is
still calling his own shots, making the films
he wants to make, and doing it
his way.
Yes, a good point above from Billy Brown.
BTW, I'm starting to hate this thread. It's depressing. We've run out of intelligent and valid people to discuss (Coppola, Rafelson), and are now onto real subjective bullshit talking-to-talk. I appeal to an admin to lock this...
i almost feel bad for posting this but i have to admit it: i didn't like The Pianist.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loq12.at%2Ffilm%2F03_vampire%2Fimg%2Fpolanski.jpg&hash=c20bf4e5377e224d5f924a92fe4a09ecc716a1af)
uh yeah, and on that note this thread has officially lost its shit.
not that i cared much about the thread.... :oops:
Quote from: chuckhimselfonot that i cared much about the thread.... :oops:
haha.
this thread is definitely not lockworthy. i expressed an opinion, people disagreed, oh well. that's the nature of film discussion. no slurs or racism or personal attacks. just enlightened discourse. ..i'm even finding myself intrigued by billy brown's description of solaris. and his over soderbergh assessment makes sense.
so what's the big deal?
Let me jump in to defend Soderbergh. The Limey, Traffic, Full Frontal, and Solaris all have as much (if not more) power for me as Sex, Lies & Videotape. That's what he's supposed to be living up to, right?
Quote from: pookiethecatso what's the big deal?
there is no big deal., SNT just suggested it be locked, no one signed anything.
it's just that this began as a sort of realistic thing on directors who've lost their shit, and now it's become totally nothing. it's pretty obvious to anyone with eyes that soderbergh hasn't lost anything, in fact he's prolly become exponentially better in the last 5 years. making one or 2 commerical flops doesn't count as "falling off". sheesh, maybe if he was john travolta.
It seems ludicrous to try and say a guy's "lost his shit" when he's not even through the middle part of his career. This discussion belongs in the Soderbergh thread if it's gonna be a bunch of opinion pieces on his body of work thus far...
i agree. it's not fair to say some director lost his shit... it even sounds vulgar... c'mon people, be decent.
EDIT: change the name to "directors who have lost their doggie-doo"
Directors on the verge of losing their shit, or: Directors with dingleberries.
Quote from: Slick ShoesDirectors on the verge of losing their shit, or: Directors with dingleberries.
Directors whose feces have been temporarily or permanently misplaced also sounds less caustic, i think.
Better?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Quote from: soixanteIf filmmakers can lose it, they can regain it. Soderbergh's first film was great, his next two (Kafka, The Underneath) sucked. He went back to square one, making a very low budget, experimental film (Schizopolis), then found his footing making crime dramas (Out of Sight, The Limey, Traffic).
Same with Gus Van Sant, who has gone back to his experimental, low budget roots with Gerry and Elephant after doing a few Hollywood major studio films.
I'm waiting for Francis Ford Coppola to regain it.
for the record, gus van sant's "roots" were music videos and commercials. He's never been experimental; maybe he throws in some "avant-garde" sensibilities in his films, but they've all been pretty straight-foward narratives. Some of them are slower-paced than most American movies, but at most he's "arthouse"/"indie."
soderbergh's still got it technically; he's not sucking, but at the same time, since schizopolis he's just been making star vehicles. that includes Traffic. And I loved Out of Sight, but it was a well-crafted Clooney and J Lo movie, made to showcase how hot/ hip they are. He fits QT's criteria for someone whose very personal film has flopped and since then turns to work on star vehicles.
So saying that Altman never lost his ShiZOTski, (aka shit), would you say he's been gaining integrity?
I mean, most people would probably mark "Popeye" as a commercial point in his career to gain funding for personal/more artistic projects, but that movie was so WEIRD at times and un-Popeye that I still find myself oddly attracted to it. I personally agree that Altman is good though, still.
Just throwin' a little wrench in the Altman-praise gears.
Quote from: pookiethecatQuote from: Slick ShoesDirectors on the verge of losing their shit, or: Directors with dingleberries.
Directors whose feces have been temporarily or permanently misplaced also sounds less caustic, i think.
What are feces? 8)
Quote from: RoyalTenenbaumQuote from: pookiethecatQuote from: Slick ShoesDirectors on the verge of losing their shit, or: Directors with dingleberries.
Directors whose feces have been temporarily or permanently misplaced also sounds less caustic, i think.
What are feces? 8)
baby mice
Awwwwww.
Quote from: Weak2ndActAwwwwww.
haha.
The Mystery of the Missing Moviemakers
By SHARON WAXMAN; New York Times
FOR fans of Kimberly Peirce 2007 may be a banner year.
More than seven years have passed since this 39-year-old writer-director gave the world a movie. Her first effort in 1999, "Boys Don't Cry," was indelible. It won a best-actress Oscar for the unknown Hilary Swank and catapulted Ms. Peirce to a spot among the major filmmaking talents of her generation.
But time has been passing, with no second movie. This spring Paramount will finally release her new film, "Stop-Loss," about an Iraq war veteran who returns home to Texas and is called back to duty through the military's so-called stop-loss procedure.
Seven years amounts to a yawning stretch in the prime of any filmmaker's creative life. And what happens if the new film fails?
But it would be unfair to pick on Ms. Peirce or any one filmmaker for spending years between projects. She is only one of numerous filmmakers among her generation who have taken long hiatuses before stepping back up to the plate; others include breakthrough directors of the 1990s like Darren Aronofsky, David O. Russell and Spike Jonze.
Is it a sign of timidity, or laziness, or some unexpected lack of drive? Is it a lack of interesting material? Is it the fault of the studio system and its emphasis on high-paying, mind-numbing commercial fare?
Mr. Aronofsky, the director of "Pi" and "Requiem for a Dream," released his latest film, "The Fountain," in November after working on it for seven years. It quickly sank from sight. Mr. Russell, widely admired for his original mix of comedy and seriousness in "Flirting With Disaster" and "Three Kings," has dropped from view since his disastrous "I Heart Huckabees" in 2004, and is not close to making a new film. The delightfully absurdist Mr. Jonze, of "Being John Malkovich" and "Adaptation" fame, has spent the last several years making music videos and finally settled on a feature film based on the Maurice Sendak book "Where the Wild Things Are," planned for release in 2008.
It's not zero productivity, perhaps, but it is a far cry from the deluge of creative output from young directors in the 1970s, when Hal Ashby fired off seven movies in nine years, including "Shampoo" in 1975, "Bound for Glory" in 1976 and "Coming Home" in 1978. Robert Altman made six films in five years, including "MASH" and "Brewster McCloud" in 1970 and "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" in 1971. And Francis Ford Coppola had a similarly fertile run, with "The Godfather" in 1972, along with "The Conversation" and "The Godfather: Part II" in 1974.
The current lack of productivity among promising filmmakers in their 30s and 40s has become a cause for quiet consternation among producers and agents, not to mention film lovers. It is felt in the paucity of movies creating excitement around the Oscars, and in the desperate trolling for new talent at the Sundance Film Festival.
And it's not just these filmmakers. Other major directors have spent years tiptoeing around different projects, often ambitious ones, only to back away and ultimately choose something more familiar. David Fincher, who after "Seven" and "Fight Club" in the '90s was considered a top filmmaker, has become notorious for spending months considering projects, then walking away. His latest film, "Zodiac," a police thriller, is finally due from Paramount; picking up the pace, he has been shooting an adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's "Curious Case of Benjamin Button," about a man who ages in reverse.
Others, like Baz Luhrmann, who reinvented the musical with "Moulin Rouge!" in 2001, or Mark Romanek, who created excitement with his indie "One Hour Photo" in 2002, have had projects fall through for various reasons. Mr. Luhrmann is currently filming "Australia," starring Hugh Jackman, his first film since "Moulin Rouge!"; Mr. Romanek is still idle.
In the space between all the conversations in Hollywood about star salaries, box-office winnings and Oscar possibilities lurks a larger question: Where are the missing movies?
"I say it to these guys all the time, and some of them are my friends: 'I feel like I want to see more movies from you,' " said Lorenzo di Bonaventura, a producer who was in charge of production in the '90s at Warner Brothers, where he championed both "Three Kings" and "The Matrix." "Why not more David Russell? Why not more Darren Aronofsky?" As filmgoers we're being deprived. We as a business have to reach out to these filmmakers and beg them to make more."
Even Alexander Payne, the writer and director of "Sideways," a critical darling two years ago, is not productive enough for Mr. di Bonaventura. "Why wouldn't I want one movie a year from him?" he asked.
Mr. di Bonaventura suggested that this diminished output had something to do with the extreme scrutiny the filmmakers' every step receives. "The biggest problem in the business is you're torn apart for failure now," he said. "By the critics, by the audience, by the studios — everybody."
David Linde, co-chairman of Universal, agreed that the Hollywood fishbowl is not always healthy for originality and creativity. "There's a lot of pressure in this town to be part of the mix in a specific way," he said, like having the best weekend box-office numbers.
Some mentioned money in discussing the drought: successful writer-directors can make huge fees rewriting other people's scripts, as Roger Avary has since winning an Oscar as one of the writers of "Pulp Fiction" in 1994, or by directing commercial blockbuster-type movies, as Bryan Singer has done with "Superman Returns" and "X-Men," after making a striking impression with "The Usual Suspects" in 1995.
But it is possible that the self-indulgent American culture that shaped these filmmakers and made them so successful in the 1990s has left them ill equipped to take on the weightier questions facing society in the new millennium. Perhaps Quentin Tarantino, child of the video culture, feels at a loss when faced with the war in Iraq and global terrorism. And yet Mr. Russell made a movie about Iraq in 1999, well ahead of the current conflict, while the projects he now has in development are in the light comedy vein.
"It's part of the larger culture," said Laura Ziskin, who was in charge of Fox 2000 when it made "Fight Club" and is now producing the third "Spider-Man" movie. "There's not a lot of encouragement to go deep on anything. In the '70s people had the feeling they could change things through art, through creativity."
Hollywood itself has a responsibility too, said Jeremy Barber, a leading agent for writer-directors like Noah Baumbach. "There's no one pushing back," he said. "It takes an oppositional force" to bring out the best in an artist, like a strong-minded studio executive or producer.
"We have an indulgent system," he added. "The industry celebrates them prematurely, and we don't enter into a dialectical relationship with them."
Ms. Peirce declined a request for an interview, but a spokeswoman said that she took a long time to find material she liked well enough to make into a movie.
Ms. Peirce has had many opportunities along the way. She landed a two-year deal at New Line in 2000, which expired without a project getting off the ground. She had been slated to direct "Memoirs of a Geisha" and, later, "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius," based on the book by Dave Eggers. In 2001 she spoke in interviews of spending seven months researching an unsolved murder for what was to be her next project. That movie was never made.
More than any other factor, though, Hollywood veterans cite the absence of the kind of creative ferment that coursed through the Hollywood of the 1970s, the challenge that one cinematic triumph posed to other artists.
At least that's what Cameron Crowe, the writer and director of "Jerry Maguire," "Almost Famous" and the more recent critical disaster "Elizabethtown" suggested, as he was leaving a recent tribute to his hero, Billy Wilder.
"There's no community," he said. "We need to encourage one another." He cited the rivalry between the Beach Boys and the Beatles in the '60s, when one group's innovative album spurred the other to do it one better. "It's like 'Pet Sounds' and 'Sgt. Pepper's,' " Mr. Crowe said. "It becomes a cycle that feeds on itself. One great work leads to another."
There is powerful evidence of that dynamic in three ambitious, critically hailed movies in 2006 that were, in no small way, the fruit of mutual challenge and frank criticism. The films — Alejandro González Iñárritu's "Babel," Guillermo del Toro's "Pan's Labyrinth" and Alfonso Cuarón's "Children of Men" — were constantly reviewed and critiqued among the three directors, who are all Mexican.
"These films are like triplets, they are sisters," Mr. Cuarón said in a telephone interview from Mexico. (In the middle of the conversation his cellphone rang, with Mr. Iñárritu on the line. "I am trashing you as we speak," Mr. Cuarón told him in Spanish.)
"We are very good friends," he continued. "We are big fans of one another, we respect each other so much. If Alejandro says, 'That stinks,' I know he is not trying to hurt me, he's trying to help me."
All three films — which last month received a total of 16 Oscar nominations among them (including writing nominations for all three) — take on serious subjects in contemporary society. Mr. González Iñárritu's film is a multicharacter tale about the breakdown in communication across diverse cultures. Mr. Cuarón's, based on a novel by P. D. James, is a dystopic comment on society, foreseeing a terrifying future where women's fertility has disappeared amid environmental disaster and a rising police state. And Mr. del Toro's dark fable, set in Spain in the 1940s, grapples with the dangers of blind obedience in the face of evil.
When Mr. González Iñárritu ran out of steam in the editing room, Mr. del Toro trimmed several minutes from his film; Mr. González Iñárritu returned the favor on "Pan's Labyrinth." After months of research in London, Mr. Cuarón showed an early draft of the screenplay for "Children of Men" to Mr. González Iñárritu.
"He said: 'Man, this is a piece of junk. You can't shoot this thing. Where are your characters?' " Mr. Cuarón recalled. He spent a sleepless night, then went back to the drawing board.
This mutual prodding has been going on for years, Mr. del Toro said. "We have a relationship that is not guarded, and that is invaluable in an industry where most people expect complacency," he said over a drink at a Los Angeles theater where he was introducing "Pan's Labyrinth" to a local audience.
"All you can dream of is a system of truth, and support," he went on. True to his creed — and in conspicuous contrast to his American counterparts — he is already at work on a new film, a sequel to "Hellboy."