Influenced by...

[godardian]

I find I'm more influenced by "older" directors than "younger" ones.

I would never rip off just for the sake of ripping off (or tribute, if you wanna put it diplomatically). I find I have what I think of as an arsenal in my head of cinematic grammar, which can then be deployed as best fits through whatever story/concept I'm envisioning.

I also think that our culture has degraded toward form (I don't care about content so much, as far as what kinds of language/sex/nudity is allowed now; content is fairly universal, limited, and timeless) to the extent that simply because the previous generations of "great" directors lived in a time where the public actually seemed to have attention spans, their work tends to feel more firmly entrenched and resonant to me. They were more free to devote themselves to their vision without focus groups, etc. They still had their battles with producers, but that seems like a much higher plane of disagreement compared with what happens nowadays.

[tpfkabi]

if you read reviews of Godard/Truffaut during their time, they also talked about how much they ripped older directors.......i'm sure it was the same with Scorsese before them.......

Did you just say that Scorsese came before the French New Wave?

it would seem that way, but i was talking about the newer directors.........see how i finished the paragraph..........i write as i think and if i come to a different thought then i put a "...................."

[The Silver Bullet]

I find I have what I think of as an arsenal in my head of cinematic grammar, which can then be deployed as best fits through whatever story/concept I'm envisioning.

Exactly. And I feel that this is what seperates the artists from the rest.

I believe in cinematic grammar, but not in the sense that there is only one set of rules. I think that, with the great directors [old or young or somewhere in between], you can see that they have, in essence, developed their own cinematic grammar over time, based entirely on their vision and nothing else. Their grammar might borrow from that of others, but not for the purpose of being cool, clever or shocking. It borrows only to aid the vision, and I think that's the thing. I think that's the line. Borrow, but not for any superficial reason.

I don't feel, as yet, that Paul Thomas Anderson or Quentin Tarantino have developed their own cinematic languages, and I don't feel that [at present] their borrowing from the past is anything other than chic homage. The Wise Up sequence of Magnolia demonstrates that Anderson definitely has the ability to develop a personal, distinct grammar, and I feel that Punch-Drunk Love was a step in the right direction for him. Kill Bill, for Tarantino, was a step backwards.

Love them or hate them, people like Lars von Trier, Wes Anderson, Pedro Almodóvar, Baz Luhrmann, Steven Soderbergh and [more recently] Gus Van Sant are the ones that are truly forming their own cinematic rules and theories at the present. And they do it, not with the intent of being hip, but with the intent of supporting their vision.

It's not a question of young and old. It's a question entirely of specific people and specific films. In some ways, it's not a question of who at all. It's a question of how one is being inspired, and for what purpose.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

Sure, Malkovich sucked in the third act, but it still proves the point, and Kaufman will get over that syndrome some day hopefully.

I don't know, for me, that made it better.  Getting drawn out, it just showed how long it went on for.  

Onto, young/old directors.  

Young directors are obviously inspired by old ones.  Find me a great director who says "I made this all up.  Never watched a movie before, don't really look up to any other directors."  So younger directors have a choice.  Bastardize the style they are influenced by OR further it.  How can you add on to Kubrick?  You can't.  You can work off of it, and styles create ripples onto other styles.

They all amalgamate, and I'm assuming we get some pretty neato films this way.  Sure we get disgraces, more than there are greats, too... but that's expected.  It always works this way.  It's a siphon, but I think it's positive.  So If I look up to QT, PTA, araonofsky (who dosen't have an acronym yet) and I do look up to all of them, I'm looking up toa multiitude of refined talents as one.

[The Silver Bullet]

Find me a great director who says "I made this all up. Never watched a movie before, don't really look up to any other directors."

Luc Besson is a little like that. The first time he even saw a television was when he was fifteen or something.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

Find me a great director who says "I made this all up. Never watched a movie before, don't really look up to any other directors."

Luc Besson is a little like that. The first time he even saw a television was when he was fifteen or something.

That's nuts.