Xixax Film Forum

Why is it more okay to be influenced by older directors than young?


"I'm influenced by Darren Aronofsky and Quentin Tarantino."
The answere he/she gets: "Grow up. Be a doctor or a lawyer. Something real."

"I'm influenced by Scorsese and Eisenstein."
The answere he/she gets: "Wonderful. You even look like a director. Good luck in the future. Remember me when you win the Oscar."

Quote from: kotte
"I'm influenced by Scorsese and Eisenstein."
The answere he/she gets: "Remember me when you win the Oscar."

That's funny. Shouldn't there be another option of being influenced by a variety of filmmakers, young and old?
I'm influenced by guys like Altman, Scorsese and Herzog but I'm also influenced by guys like PTA, Tarantino, and LaBute.

I agree with what you're saying but don't you think it's more accepted to be influenced by Scorsese than say QT?

I see what you're saying here. Yes, I think you achieve more praise for mention a heavyweight like Scorsese. I've heard many people get the "Oh, the next Spielberg" which REALLY irks me.
Looking at it on a grand scale, it really *shouldn't* matter who you're influenced by, but to some people its a different story. If you're influenced by Tarantino, you're more likely perceived as a guy who just wants to make 'cool' movies.

Yeah, it's sad that our influences matters when we're judged.

Maybe it's because younger directors like QT, PTA, Wes etc are so heavily influenced themselfes. It's like ripping off a ripoff. I don't mean PTA and QT are ripoffs but you see what I'm saying. QT actually is a ripoff...but in a cool way.

It's an interesting discussion because I don't think QT is a ripoff. He's formed his own Tarantino style. You don't watch Tarantino and think "oh that's so-and-so.(edit: well, maybe you do.. i don't)" Same goes for the other great auteurs like PTA, Wes, and LaBute.

Quote from: CinephileIt's an interesting discussion because I don't think QT is a ripoff. He's formed his own Tarantino style. You don't watch Tarantino and think "oh that's so-and-so.(edit: well, maybe you do.. i don't)" Same goes for the other great auteurs like PTA, Wes, and LaBute.

QT is a ripoff there's nothing else to it. But he puts his own unique and cool spin to it.

You don't get that "ripoff feeling" when you watch his movies...that's why he's unique. But if you look at his movies you know he's ripping off other movies.

I love Tarantino but I feel a director like PTA is more original.

Oh I know exactly what movies he's "ripping off" but for guys like him and PTA, I don't like to label it as that. They're MUCH higher and much more talented than to be given those titles.
But I'm perfectly aware that PTA will say things like "I ripped that right from Demme." Or "That's very Truffaut right there." But I don't know, I don't conclude that they're ripping them off....

I don't like to say rip off in the same context as talanted filmmakers as they are.

But...

PTA doesn't rip off movies...he rip shots...and if we call that ripoff then we all are ripoffs...someone did 'the close up' first.

Quote from: kottePTA doesn't rip off movies...

Ever see Atlantic City, Goodfellas, Casino, Short Cuts, Nashville, and any Johnny Wadd movies?

I was kind of shocked when I first saw Atlantic City a couple years ago.  It's very Hard Eight-ish, and even referenced (Jimmy mentions the old guys in 'Clifton's,' which is a bar that Burt Lancaster hangs out in).

I don't think we should cite Eisenstein, Kuleshov, Griffith, and Welles (etc)everytime we watch movies... doesn't make sense to me.

I'm hardly influenced by new directors nor really even see the point of it. For a director to be known really, he has to have a style and most young directors are just jazz musicians playing jam sessions and collecting a vast amount of different styles, rythms and stories from older directors. With the better older directors, you see a logical approach to art to why they chose their own style or developed into it. I hardly ever hear of (reasonable) new cinematic theories coming out of filmmakers today.

Me too. I agree with the trumpet man. I'm not influenced by new directors.
Mainly because (in my view), the new directors have to be really special and different with their ideas. Which much be really hard. I dunno, I'm not a director. So there aren't a great deal of amazingly new and influencal directors.
But I love old films, and old soviet films. I love the directing. Theres something special about old films.
One film which really influenced me was Battleship Potemkin oh and 'Strike' was amazing too. In fact I have a great deal of respect towards Eisenstein!
H

I've become quite disillusioned recently by the realization that QT is a rip-off artist.  It's sad, really, because he does have talent, and he does most of his rip-offs (er, send-ups) so that they're so joyously in-your-face that when you discover that pretty much the whole majority of what he does is unoriginal, it's disheartening.  Three of his four films are derivative of other films.  Pulp Fiction is the only original work, but perhaps that's only because we haven't found where QT got his inspiration for that one from.  And I think Roger Avary may have something to say about that.  Who knows?

Sad thing is, PTA does the same thing QT does: he rips off other greater, less-known directors with style.  Now, I love PTA (and I look forward to seeing the bulk of the films he, er, "borrowed" from), but this makes me think seriously about where I'm drawing my influences from so I'm not just remixing the greatest hits of other directors, so to speak.  They say all the stories have been told and everything else is just a matter of style.  Perhaps that is true, but I don't quite believe it.  After all, Cameron Diaz said "it's been said that in Hollywood there are only 14 different scripts. Well, this is number 15." (referring to Being John Malkovich).  It came along, broke the mold, and made it 14, so to speak.  Sure, Malkovich sucked in the third act, but it still proves the point, and Kaufman will get over that syndrome some day hopefully.

I disagree, we are more influenced by the younger directors.  Think about it, you see a film by (insert Young Director here) and you find out that he was influenced by (insert Old Director here) and you check out that film/director.

Now you change your view and say you were influenced by the old director when in fact you were INFLUENCED by the younger one.

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.......Welles was famous with Kane because he brought back a lot of old techniques.........i guess the only way to find an all orginal director would be to find the first film ever filmed.......of course, what makes all the aforementioned great was that they added their own personal touches........it sounds kinda smug and i know a lot of you probably know a lot more about cinema than i do, but there's a lot of truth in that.......i guess the older and older that cinema gets, the more layers are added because Tarantino/the Andersons, etc have studied all of these

Quote from: SHAFTRI disagree, we are more influenced by the younger directors.  Think about it, you see a film by (insert Young Director here) and you find out that he was influenced by (insert Old Director here) and you check out that film/director.

Now you change your view and say you were influenced by the old director when in fact you were INFLUENCED by the younger one.

The influence you are talking about is the initiative influence. If you go by what I said in where most logical approaches to film are in older filmmakers, the final influence does come from them because they are the ones that force you to think on your own in developing a logical style. To separate between the initiative and the final, its like saying you discovered the first film by one filmmaker and that led you to see his later and more developed work. By the end, you are hardly influenced by that first film at all.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: SHAFTRI disagree, we are more influenced by the younger directors.  Think about it, you see a film by (insert Young Director here) and you find out that he was influenced by (insert Old Director here) and you check out that film/director.

Now you change your view and say you were influenced by the old director when in fact you were INFLUENCED by the younger one.

The influence you are talking about is the initiative influence. If you go by what I said in where most logical approaches to film are in older filmmakers, the final influence does come from them because they are the ones that force you to think on your own in developing a logical style. To separate between the initiative and the final, its like saying you discovered the first film by one filmmaker and that led you to see his later and more developed work. By the end, you are hardly influenced by that first film at all.

but that first film influenced you to check out the other films.

Quote from: SHAFTRbut that first film influenced you to check out the other films.

Yes, it did, but what influence does it have after seeing all the films?

..for me its both.....like for theh nnewer ones....aronofsky, qt., soderberg..pta.....etc...

and the old ones like lynch mallick..stanley...stone....
i don't know really its about the same ...
i'm innnlfuenced by good directors young or old.....

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: SHAFTRbut that first film influenced you to check out the other films.

Yes, it did, but what influence does it have after seeing all the films?

I think the initial influence is what is important.  That initial younger director sparks your interest and draws your attention to other films.

If I watch Vanilla Sky and find out that it's a remake of Open Your Eyes, and than watch that film...I have been influenced by Cameron Crowe.

Quote from: SHAFTR

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: SHAFTRbut that first film influenced you to check out the other films.

Yes, it did, but what influence does it have after seeing all the films?

I think the initial influence is what is important.  That initial younger director sparks your interest and draws your attention to other films.

If I watch Vanilla Sky and find out that it's a remake of Open Your Eyes, and than watch that film...I have been influenced by Cameron Crowe.

But....the initial influence cannot keep up with you continually growing. If I took my intitial influence really to heart as most important, I'd say every Kubrick film were the most influential films for me. They really aren't and my opinion of Kubrick now is harsher than most people may think. Lesser films led me to Kubrick and Kubrick led me to other films and those other films to other films and so on. If you take the intitial influence, where does it really begin then? Does it start with the film that just made you like movies? I definitely couldn't say Die Hard is influential for me now in matters of judging films.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI definitely couldn't say Die Hard is influential for me now in matters of judging films.

maybe it was?

Kevin Smith films were influential in getting me interested in films.

who gives a fuck who you were influenced by
who gives a fuck if you copy from other people

as long as you make it watchable and interesting

QT rips off shitty old blacksploitation pictures I would never waste my time watching

Ratner apparently loves a ton of foreign films that are my favorites

yet I will watch a QT over a Ratner film any old day of the week


and I firmly plan on lifting scenes/shots/dialogue verbatim from movies I like

voted for old..
there are only a handful of directors now that really impress me.  i mean before you had kurosawa, kubrick, etc. very hard to compete with that.
but sometimes its amazing how a masterpiece just pops up.  times are just diffrent now but thats not to say that todays directors wont be great.

the notion of "influenced by" is funny to me. u only know the ones u consciously choose to rip off. and little things that are inherent in cinematic language, tho u may not give credit to sumone, u prolly saw it first like in a Sergio Leone film.

since i only am consciously influenced by one filmmaker, dead, i voted for old.

Quote from: Pthe notion of "influenced by" is funny to me. u only know the ones u consciously choose to rip off. and little things that are inherent in cinematic language, tho u may not give credit to sumone, u prolly saw it first like in a Sergio Leone film.

Technically, if you use a closeup you're ripping off...so we're talking about conscious off ripping.

Quote from: SoNowThenwho gives a fuck if you copy from other people

Personally, I think the person doing the copying should themselves. At least, they should if they want to be considered one of the greatest directors to have ever lived, which in a Rolling Stone article, Quentin Tarantino said he does...

Quote from: Sanjurothere are only a handful of directors now that really impress me. i mean before you had kurosawa, kubrick, etc. very hard to compete with that.

Yeah, but it's not like they were the only directors working or anything either. You can say that filmmakers today aren't as good as those of yesterday, but you also have to remember that you only remember the greats.

Quote from: Psince i only am consciously influenced by one filmmaker, dead, i voted for old.

Who, out of interest?

Quote from: The Silver BulletWho, out of interest?

Leni Riefenstahl.

subconsciously there are probably a few more, but to know them u would hav to ask me in a dream.

Quote from: bigideasif 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?

:shock:

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.

Quote from: The Silver Bullet

Quote from: bigideasif 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?

:shock:

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 "...................."

Quote from: godardianI 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.

Quote from: OnomatopoeiaSure, 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.

Quote from: Walrus, KookookajoobFind 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.

Quote from: The Silver Bullet

Quote from: Walrus, KookookajoobFind 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.