• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Question about Themes and Directors

Y

yatesy_2k4

Guest
I was just wondering this and I may be wrong when I say it. But ive noticed that with most famous directors they tend to stick to one type of theme to there movies e.g. action and they will only do action films.

Myself I believe I would be good at Horror, action, and dramatic movies because its who I am.

So who has an answer to my question?
 
I don't believe you've actually asked a question, but I think I understand what you're asking.

Yes, directors typically find themselves reusing the same genre, but often times they will mix and match two or more genres into their films. My fave example would be Paul Thomas Anderson directing Hard Eight (Sydney) which is drama/action, Boogie Nights which is drama/comedy, Magnolia which is part romance/drama, part action/drama, and then Punch Drunk Love which is Romance/Comedy/Drama.

Some directors like Luc Besson really specialize and do well with Action & Drama genres while I would never expect him to put out a romance/comedy like Sleepless in Seattle, and similarly I would not expect Tim Burton to put out anything other than eccentric horror/drama/sci-fi stuff.

I think more often than not Directors have a specific vision and maybe life experiences that will allow them to visualize certain sequences easily, and they find success with it so why A) take a risk of hurting your career by trying to change to other genres and maybe producing flops, B) why not stick with what you've found success with?

And I think it really all comes down to the line that they tell practically every writer when they first start out, "Write from experience". Some do, and it works, so they keep repeating the process.
 
It is nice though when a director breaks genre and goes crazy, like Linklater with School of Rock. Even Dazed and Confused can't be categorized a solely comedy, so SoR was nice departure for him.

Of all the directors out there, only one I can think of does soemthing new and different pretty much everytime he steps behind the lense, and that's Speilberg. Sure, he carries over themes from one genre to the other, but he never makes the same type of film twice in a row. I think that's why he's considered the greatest.

It's okay for a director to stick to what he knows, as long as he keeps it fresh, but wouldn't it be great if directors were more willing to take chances?

Poke
 
It's about the little boxes we put people in

Firstly, I'm not sure that all directors do stick to one genre. It's easy to say that Luc Besson only does classy action/thrillers, but that is to ignore films like Le Dernier Combat, Atlantis, The Big Blue and his Joan of Arc.

A director like Woody Allen has done films that are immediately recognisable as Woody Allen films, however they cross a number of genres from musicals to light screwball comedy.

I think this is true of most directors. What I'm sure happens is that most directors are boxed into a particular category of film, usually the one they have most commercial sucess with.

What I believe, is that in this business it is easier to sell a second sucessful project in the same genre, than it is to make a complete departure. The audience will always buy more of the same and are less open to radical changes in product.

I do know that some director have a creative or political link to a particular way of working. I think that Ken Loach and Mike Leigh are good examples of this. I can't imagine either of them doing anything but social realism.

For directors to make more chances, as an audience we'd have to be more willing to try new experiences. This would mean renting films by directors we've never heard, of with actors that we don't know either.

This is probably never going to happen.
 
Re: It's about the little boxes we put people in

clive said:
For directors to make more chances, as an audience we'd have to be more willing to try new experiences. This would mean renting films by directors we've never heard, of with actors that we don't know either.

This is probably never going to happen.

I think that is something most members of this board do on a regular basis, at least I do. Just this weekend, I went and saw House of Sand and Fog - a director I'd never heard of, although I'd heard a great deal about the acting, the directing's what made the movie for me. I rented Sweet Sixteen and Morvern Callar, two movie's I'd heard nothing about, and with MC I'd never heard of the director either.

Poke
 
Re: It's about the little boxes we put people in

I think that is something most members of this board do on a regular basis, at least I do.
I respect that, but that doesn't change my point, because members of this notice board are unlikely to be a representative cross section of the movie going/renting public. They are, by joining this, already expressing an interest in independent film making.

The main bulk of the movie going public are more conservative in their tastes, needing the product, in the main, to be by directors they know or staring actors they already like.

Films that break this mould are few and far between.

The point I was trying to make, was that it was this tendancy of audiences to stick with what they know, that accounts for directors sticking to what has worked in the past.

As an independent director myself, I understand that my ability to raise money to make my next film will depend on my being able to demonstrate a market for my new product. I can only do this based on my track record. If I have a sucessful track record making westerns, I'm going to have a hard job bringing the money in, if I decide to do an art house costume drama.

No matter what level you are working at in the industry the same money pressures apply.
 
Personally, I like it when a director tries something new. The year after Annie Hall, Woody Allen came out with his first serious drama, Interiors. Yes, it is a risk, but it also proves that you know more than one genre. Like myself, I tend to shift torward the comedy side and psycological when writing, yet I also try to write in other genres too, so that the audience wont find repitition, film after film. you know?
 
I agree with clive. Film is an industry and an industry needs money. The sad fact is unfortunately the majority of its paying customers (be warned - this is a gross generalisation) are numbskulled feedmefeelgooders. I think the mainstream film market is something that cannot hack unpredicatability and loves stability which is applicable to any market. But because film is not just a market but also an expressive art form there's a fine balance - and possibly a balance which hollywood is constantly in danger of going for the negative.
The constant thread in marketing for the cinema is that advertisers 'prey' on films with stars and vacform storylines and genres that the market. (which is what clive was saying)
Anyone see danny boyles twenty eight days later? That was almost there! Almost! But then they blew it (obliterated it) with the most awful ending. I hate the business men in hollywood.
But anyway, I think possibly, within the mainstream film market you can only break the mould if you are able to stand alone and market like hell.
But I think an interesting thread (and I've just thought of a new topic heading) is the distinction between film and print and advertising in the industry... hmmm - blair witch?... hmmm...
 
There was a question?

First - you're confusing *theme* with *genre*. Genre is the category of film - like action or horror or comedy. Theme is the underlying point, point of view, issue, or message of the movie. So Sam Peckinpah - who made westerns, war movies, and action films - always deals with the theme of what constitutes being a man. "It's not whether you give your word or not, it's who you give it to." He explores that theme in his movies no matter what genre.

But directors can be typecast by genre. It's both a good thing and a bad thing. The reason why it might be a good thing - you become the expert in a certain genre and are hired for films in that genre. They send you the scripts in that genre to select from. The bad thing - what if Peckinpah had wanted to do a big musical? (Was I the only one here who paid to see Scorsese's musical? How about Woody Allens' straight drama INTERIORS? So maybe it's a good thing is disguise!)

If you work independently, you can do just about whatever you want... as long as you find the money.

If you work mainstream, the audience (which is comprised of geniuses and morons alike) want to be entertained. That's why we pay our $10. Nobody cares who directed it - they care whether it is entertaining. They *do* care who stars in it, because they think that might be a way to figure out if it's entertaining. Hey, Jim Carrey's in this SPOTLESS MIND movie, maybe it'll be really funny like LIAR LIAR! (Those people will be disappointed - the film is typical Kaufman.) Mostly, they watch the trailers to make their decisions - which means it all comes down to story elements. Part of that is genre - a "normal comedy" like LIAR LIAR will have a trailer with lots of funny gags, a film like SPOTLESS is going to have a trailer with weird stuff - like cars and people being erased as Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet run to escape the erasing. That doesn't produce laughter in the average person.
The main element of genre is the emotional effect on the audience. So a comedy makes the audience laugh, a thriller makes them sit on the edge of their seat, a horror movie has them feel dread and fear. How well a movie communicates these emotions to the audience is the way the audience judges the film. A comedy that doesn't make them laugh isn't very good. A comedy that has them laughing all the time is great. A movie like LIAR LIAR can make them laugh, plus make them think about honesty... just as SPOTLESS is all about heartbreak (theme).

In a strange way, our instrument is the audience. We make a movie to spark emotions within them. How well our film sparks those emotions is how quality is decided by the audience... and the critics... and eventually whether the film stands the test of time and becomes "art".

- Bill
 
Back
Top