What's next? The digital wave of filmmakers

[Gamblour.]

This might be rambley, so bear with me. I've been mulling on this idea for about 8 years without really knowing it. I've always been fascinated by the age directors finally get their real breakout film off the ground -- they're usually about 27-30 years old. When I was in high school, the majority of my favorite directors fell into this schema. Even our beloved, Stanley Kubrick, had The Killing and Paths of Glory under his belt before he was 30. This I found interesting, that these directors all sort of led similar paths to finally creating a film that people -- audiences and critics -- took notice of and served as the catalyst for their careers. I've always sort of thought of it as a guide for my own career.

Recently, and I can't believe it took me so long to stumble upon this, I was perusing this same list of directors I was really into -- PTA, Aronofsky, Wes Anderson, Shyamalan, Jonze, Christopher Nolan -- and I just checked out their birth dates. They are all born within a year of each other. Roughly. From February 1969 to August 1970, these guys were born. Shit, even fucking Brett Ratner himself falls into this 'wave' of filmmakers.

I was pretty astounded, especially since I read Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers," which delves into one of his big ideas about successful industrialists and entrepreneurs. The more interesting example he include revolves around Microsoft and Apple. The big wigs at both companies were all born somewhere between '53 and '58. It's just fascinating. These guys were born in just the right time, as technology was advancing and becoming more accessible, to be able to learn about it and propel it forward. As Gladwell puts it, if they were any older, they would have learned older computing methods that would soon be outmoded, and if they were any younger, they would be too late for this crucial point where they would be growing up with the technology and they wouldn't have led the way.

So that got me thinking: what links these directors and their place in film? What was it about being born between '69 and '70 that led them to become filmmakers? My theory is STAR WARS. They would have been 7 or 8 when it premiered, and it would have blown their minds, propelling them forward through their adolescence to all become filmmakers. I don't know if they all saw Star Wars, but at the very least their childhoods were a robust time for cinema, with Coppola and Spielberg and you guys know.

Interestingly enough, you can trace older filmmakers to this moment: Tarantino, Fincher, Soderbergh, Sam Mendes, Cuaron, Gondry were all born in the '60s. They could be the beginning crest of the wave to come. Filmmakers like David Gordon Green could be the end of this wave.

To me, this is definitely some kind of movement, all of it tied to the independent cinema of the 1990s. Soderbergh and Tarantino led the way for smaller filmmakers to get a film made, get it into the festival circuit, and forge a path from there. They all had their moments in the festival circuit, sometimes veering into studio work, but often staying clear (come on Aronofsky!). But today, with the internet, this system seems almost archaic, if distributing your content online is your goal. Exhibition and distribution are essentially flattened to one entity, and the new modern filmmaker is now vertically integrated.

Does this new model replace the festival model of the 1990s? Maybe. This is all off the top of my head, sort of how I'm viewing the modern world of cinema, particularly the American system. It's not driven by data exactly, I'm just basing this off of what I've read, so if anyone wants to call me out for getting something totally wrong, go ahead.

This leads me to my point: where are future filmmakers going to come from? You've got a guy like Neill Blomkamp going from commercial work to directing, but this is typical of many fellas. The latest trend is a result of cheap digital cinema, and that's mumblecore, but that really only speaks to their mode of production and it's a tiny group nonetheless that hasn't produced any standout work (aside from the Duplass bros, if you ask me. by standout I mean critically acclaimed, mainstream, widely distributed work). There's no real trend to speak of, there's no discernible source yet. Will it be filmmakers on the internet? I think it will. At the very least, there will be some kind of generation of filmmakers to come from this. When will studios start betting on internet auteurs? Is it already happening?

As the people on this board grow older, become more involved with and more attenuated to the industry, and understanding the inertia of technology and culture that leads to the future, I think there could be some keen insight here. What's next for filmmaking?

[Gold Trumpet]

Next generation's filmmakers will become more inundated with technology glee. As much as I have been campaigning for the idea of 3D, I also have to admit more that 3D is a huge trap and will be used by future young filmmakers more for ridiculously bad reasons. It's good that established filmmakers like David Fincher and Martin Scorsese want to put their stamp on it. They can help the next generation for examples in quality filmmaking, but I think the new trends will lean on filmmakers who can coerce themselves with new technology and continue to sell trending products for the masses. Of course, some filmmakers will try to stray and represent better moral bearings as far as story and filmmaking goes, but their numbers will continue to dwindle. I can feel it today. 10 years ago I could think of a lot more genuinely ambitious filmmakers in the traditional art house sense who were still getting some youthful hype. The number is small now. It's sad that Steven Soderbergh is now an afterthought filmmaker for many people, but I told Stefen this, in 20 years, he will become an establishment for study to better understand this generation. I also think he will become more important since he is a dying breed.

[Gamblour.]

I think mentioning 3D is interesting, because I never would have considered that a part of what indie filmmakers will be capable of doing. But I'm sure it will be, it maybe 10 years, if at all. And why not? If 3D is here to stay, it will definitely be because it gets in the hands of filmmakers cheaply.

As for the 'dying breed' notion, I'm beginning to think all of the filmmakers I mentioned are a dying breed. There is no cluster of filmmakers working today, working on their next pet project. It's all different now. Shit, even Aronofsky's pretty much officially on Wolverine II, which I never could have imagined happening before. There's just no money out there for him. He hasn't navigated the playing field as well as a peer of his, Christopher Nolan. Maybe that's why he's taking Wolverine II, seeing how Nolan was able to forge his own path to Inception by playing the studios' game.

I think we're in a valley of films right now. Whereas people could secure a few million dollars for their films ("Requiem", "Memento," even "Hard Eight") and get distribution, studios and distributors are just not taking any chances any more. Catfish seems like the rare, and ultra cheap, instance where it gets bought and distributed. I think films will more likely mirror this model as film becomes more fiercely independent. Content will get better and studios will see a great opportunity to cash in on smaller efforts. That's my theory for today.

[Gold Trumpet]

3D as an example is an idea that new trends will continue to dominate filmmaking. It may be 3D in ten years. It may be something else, but what I think will happen is that new technological trends will continue to make too many filmmakers focus on things that have nothing to do with really making a great film.

Now, what I also think is a problem in general for future filmmakers, and this may get a lot of argument, but hear me out: Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight being a critical and commercial success may be the worst thing to happen to movies recently. I have problems with the film myself, but I also like it on some levels too. The thing is though, it's getting a lot of people to believe they can take entertainment movies like a Batman film and make them both be a critical success and commercial one as well. The Dark Knight is easily the most influential film of the last 10 years and I think it made a lot more filmmakers comfortable with the idea of doing Batman or superhero movies or whatever. More good filmmakers were already trending to more entertainment oriented films, but Dark Knight may make the trend be more permanent.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

Shit, even fucking Brett Ratner himself falls into this 'wave' of filmmakers.

See, I think you just invalidated yourself here.  You're looking at big names of people you respect that came out about the same time.  There are filmmakers all over the world of many varying ages that are doing incredible things, but there are a lot coming out of the common age range of 69 - 70.  Probably because they grew up when independent cinema was starting to take off, so their exposure was to amazing film whereas kids born in the 80's grew up on a lot of garbage and video, with occasional groundbreaking gems floating around.  So it took a different set of eyes to find the great stuff, while the amazing stuff in the late sixties early seventies was actually in mainstream cinemas.

But to say only the best came out about the same time excludes pretty much all of the amazing directors who didn't and forces you to accept that Brett Ratner, by this logic, is operating on a higher level that we are yet to fully fathom.

[picolas]

you can't begin to judge filmmakers born in the 80s yet because they're only just now starting to turn 30.

[New Feeling]

There really aren't any amazing filmmakers born since 1970 that I can think of.  The 21st century has been incredibly weak as far as new blood in cinema is concerned. 

[Gamblour.]

Shit, even fucking Brett Ratner himself falls into this 'wave' of filmmakers.

But to say only the best came out about the same time excludes pretty much all of the amazing directors who didn't and forces you to accept that Brett Ratner, by this logic, is operating on a higher level that we are yet to fully fathom.

Did I say "best"? I'm talking about this as a wave, as I said. Waves have shitty directors, too, and Shyamalan is included in this wave as well. My overall point lies in the mere existence of so many filmmakers from this small period of time. Which is why it's a wave, and not a collection of simply great directors.

Which brings me to:

There really aren't any amazing filmmakers born since 1970 that I can think of.  The 21st century has been incredibly weak as far as new blood in cinema is concerned. 

I, for the most part, agree with this. And I want to know -- why? Looking at the '69 - '70 class of filmmakers, there's a higher pedigree of artist emerging from that, versus any example happening today. And I think by looking at them, we can begin to question why there is no large group of emerging artists today, and where the next batch of emerging artists is going to come from. My guess: the Internet.

[Gold Trumpet]

Film became important originally because it was the first art to combine all the arts, but now it's becoming the medium to combine all multi-mediums of entertainment. With technology becoming more important, the trends will focus more on the shallow end of ingenuity. 2001: A Space Odyssey was considered very influential when it was released, but it's tone, structure and storytelling methods only influenced filmmakers in the dozens at most. However, its special effects show has influenced countless more.