♫Why does everybody keep on hiring me?♫
♫All of my work is shiiiiiit.♫
Hellooo, I'm the Nostalgia Critic.
I remember so YOU don't have to.
Well, seeing as how we just started Shyamalan month it only figures to ask the question
How do good directors go bad?
Yes it's easy to point at Shyamalan as a prime example of this
seeing how one of his earliest films, The Sixth Sense
was a huge, huge hit and his movies got increasingly worse after
but what about the others?
You know who I'm talking about.
Directors that even today are praised
as maverick game changers, but many people feel have
lost their touch in later years.
Is it just an inevitable part in getting older?
Are all artists doomed to fail if they stay around too long?
It's a question a lot of people who love movies have been asking for years.
Well the best way to look at this is probably in groups.
So lets start off by looking at the group you most likely want to hear the most about
The ones that went completely down hill.
The Shyamalans, the George Lucases, the Wachowskis.
The directors that we thought were going to change the world
but then somewhere down the line went completely south.
What do all these directors have in common?
Well, a couple of things surprisingly.
All of them, we declared, were gonna keep making great things.
If that one thing they made was amazing,
surely all the other ones afterwards will be just as amazing if not greater.
Writer Ralph Ellison wrote a novel called Invisible Man in 1952.
It was so good and so praised by everyone around him
that he never wrote another novel again.
He became a perfectionist
and the pressure of following up such a masterwork
intimidated him so much that he never released another one.
That's just one example of how certain attention can get
in the way of good progress.
When George Lucas made "Star Wars", people were blown away.
Saying it would change film forever and in some respects it did.
Every big blockbuster is trying to do what Star Wars did.
Whether in style or the amount of people they're trying to attract.
But if you look at a lot of the deleted scenes and original scripts,
you'll find that a lot of it was very similar to the now despised prequels.
There were a lot of political talks.
There were a lot of pointless scenes.
And admit it, some of the dialogue has an eerie
corny-ness of what was to come years later.
"I recognized your foul stench when I was brought on board."
Couldn't you just hear that alongside...
"Either choice presents great danger, to us all."
But one of the things was he had people giving him advice.
Telling him what would probably work and what wouldn't.
He wasn't a star yet and a lot was riding on this film.
So, why not listen?
This is possibly what helped make this movie such a big game-changer.
But even early on, the signs were there.
After the first run of the film, Lucas immediately went
back and put episode four in the opening scroll.
So as much as people like to say he's changing things
in altering the film's only recently,
they were done when they were first shown.
and remember that Empire and Jedi were not directed by him.
and the scenes that people have the most problems with
are usually the ones he pushed the heaviest.
So, years of not directing a film,
not doing that much story-telling,
and nobody talking against him
but instead praising him as a genius.
Can we really be shocked we got what we got?
History repeated itself almost identically with the Matrix movies.
The Wachowskis started off with a pretty damn good first movie.
But then hit mega-blockbuster status when they directed "The Matrix".
Much like "Star Wars", it had ground-breaking effects,
an interesting style,
and an environment that allowed for a lot of interpretation.
So, knowing Hollywood, what happened?
The exact same thing except faster.
They wanted two more Matrix movies.
Bigger and better than the original.
Telling the Wachowskis to do whatever they wanted.
But, as we learned with Lucas,
doing whatever you want isn't always the answer.
The Wachowskis also had to take advise on their first movie
and as I pointed out in my review,
it's not the like the writing was exactly perfect.
"You're my savior man...
my own personal Jesus Christ."
Subtle.
But now imagine that writing with nobody advising them
and instead a fan base praising that, "Their words are incredible
I get lost in how deep they are."
Like Lucas, the following movies reflected that.
Trying to make the world seem more vast and meaningful
while forgetting to focus on basic essentials
like enjoyable characters or a coherent story.
But think about it, if you were a writer or director in that
situation, wouldn't that possibly happen to you too?
Even directors that are still popular, like Christopher Nolan.
It's totally understandable how people can still like his work,
but even his strongest fans are starting to notice a little repeat.
A lot of philosophical talk, resulting in a very long
running-time, leading to a super complicated story.
Now these are criticisms that have always been in his movies.
All of 'em
Memento
Batman Begins
Inception
These films had very similar patterns.
Some claim it's the same thing over and over and they're sick of it.
Others claim that it doesn't matter because he just does it so well.
But everybody agrees, they've seen it a lot.
The point is, sometimes it's not giving us something different that's a noticeable problem.
Sometimes it's just giving us the exact same thing.
But not all directors are given almost complete creative freedom.
Look at horror directors like John Carpenter and the late Wes Craven.
Both of them started off with creative ideas and promising careers
but somewhere they started to feel a little stale.
After Halloween, John Carpenter directed almost a movie a year
and most of them were awesome and badass.
But then they started to go on repeat.
We were seeing stuff we thought we saw before
except not as innovative.
He basically left directing and instead soaks up the praise of his past projects.
Which, given his age and how much cool stuff he's done,
that seems fitting enough.
But as much as people praise Wes Craven after his passing,
they usually forget he's kinda been on the decline for years as well.
Sure, we know him for his early work,
but aside from the "Scream" movies,
which even mocked itself in how lame it was getting.
He hasn't made that many films that people remember.
One of the reasons may be, Wes Craven didn't want to do horror.
Ever notice a few romantic films snuck their way in there?
That's because he always wanted to do love stories.
But after the success of his scary films,
he was labeled as the master of horror for a while
and that seemed to be what kept him popular,
as well as continue to get him work.
He even made fun of this in "Scream 3" when the director
admits he doesn't even like doing horror films
and instead wanted to do romances.
He managed to get one or two in there.
But can we really be shocked that not all
his scary movies are masterpieces
when it wasn't even his original intent?
There is also a group of directors that don't make that
many good movies because they don't make that many movies in general.
The legendary Francis Ford Coppola clearly just kinda directs whatever he wants.
We all know him for the "Godfather"" films
and "Apocalypse Now".
But did you know he also directed "Captain EO"?
Or "Faerie Tale Theatre"?
Or "Peggy Sue Got Married"?
Or "Jack"?
Whether you like these or not,
you have to admit, these are rather
strange choices for a guy like this.
But part of that is understandable because he's been busy with other stuff.
From producing, to theatre work, to friggin' wine making,
he seems like a guy who likes to do a lot,
just not all in one field.
But when you do that, the chances of making constantly good films
are usually lessened as you're simply not making them as much.
But then again, if he's happy, he's happy.
Who says he has to keep making films to appease us?
William Friedkin went from directing something every year
to every three years.
And half the time it wasn't even movies, it was T.V.
And even then the choices were usually very odd
and not winning over that many critics or audiences.
But to his credit, it was those bizarre choices
that gave us masterpieces
like "The Exorcist".
or "Live and Die in L.A."
and so forth.
Sometimes that weird style can peak at just the right time.
But then, not really be ready for a different generation.
"Bug" for example,
a film about a couple going crazy from paranoia,
woulda' worked great in the 70s
but today, most audiences just find it annoying and confusing.
Neither opinion is right or wrong,
but timing is everything when it comes to making popular art.
Which comes to the next group of directors you see quite often,
the hit or miss directors.
These are the directors who used to make nothing but hits
but suddenly make misses that are so bad
you can't possibly believe they were from the same person.
Tim Burton used to be a unique visionary
with "Ed Wood", "Batman", and "Edward Scissorhands".
But then films like "Mars Attacks", "Dark Shadows",
and "Planet of the Apes" are part of his lineup too.
Ang Lee was well known for losing his path in a big way once in a while.
Gus Van Sant seems to go back-and-forth
between making annoyingly-unfocused art house experiments
and reasonably good films at the same time.
Robert Zemeckis walks the tightrope both literally and figuratively
with giants like "Back to the Future",
and "Roger Rabbit".
But then backfires with "What Lies Beneath"
and "Contact".
Robert Rodriguez is amazing in how back-and-forth he
goes with the likability or hateability of his movies.
Most recently we've seen Ridley Scott practically
lampoon his own style with "Robin Hood"
and "Prometheus".
But in one film win back everybody with "The Martian".
What do all these directors have in common?
Well, they all have pretty extreme styles.
As much as we love extremes,
people forget they can just as easily backfire
as hit bulls-eyes.
The style of these film-makers though,
seems to be just relateable enough that
even when they do make a big miss,
we're still willing to jump right back on
because they can still make a connection with us that seems timeless.
It's hard to say what the secret is that keeps us coming back to them,
but all of them have it in their own unique way.
Which brings us to the most impressive group of
directors who have gone bad,
the ones who come back.
Remember when the Cohen brothers made a long line of bad films?
They returned to pleasing us and as strange as ever.
Remember when Woody Allen suffered an embarassing personal life
as well as creative life?
He retaliated with intelligent comedies that even had a hint of magic to them.
Barry Sonnenfeld was making bomb after bomb
but then he made "Men in Black 3".
The surprising sequel that nobody knew they wanted.
Master film-makers like Stephen Spielberg and Martin Scorsese.
Both giants of cinema in their own unique way
veered into a long stream of disappointment.
But found themselves making great work again in completely new ways.
And yes,
even Shyamalan has made a little bit of a comeback
with "The Visit".
Getting both critical and box office praise.
These are directors that started off strong,
veered into dark paths,
and then seemingly came out creatively rejuvenated.
Did they just need time to heal?
Did they need to try something new to discover the old ways?
Or were the old ways getting in the way of something new?
Honestly, we can't know for sure,
and it's all subjective.
Really this is just speculation.
We can't know for sure what's going on behind the scenes
any more than we can know what's going on inside somebody's head.
Everything listed here are possibilities that seem likely
but aren't certain.
I guess what I'm trying to get to is that
there's no perfect way to make continually great art.
Everyone's gonna have their ups and downs.
Some stay down,
others come back up,
and many hover somewhere in between.
With film-making requiring as many people as it does,
there's no one method that's proven to always work.
Sometimes the studio gets in the way,
other times they save a movie.
Sometimes an artist should be allowed to do whatever they want,
other times they need more restraint.
You can never know for sure but honestly, that's what makes art so exciting.
There is no one answer.
It can come from any style, anywhere, from anyone.
Will Shyamalan ride the success of "The Visit" into better work?
Or was it just a lucky shot in the dark?
Nobody knows and thank God for it.
The unpredictability of what a product is going to do
is part of what makes it so thrilling.
A well-known director can make crap
and a well-known bad director can make gold.
So just remember, when it comes to art, there is no certainty
and you don't have all the answers,
none of us do.
It's just interesting to speculate and guess
to help figure out what can make something better.
There's nothing wrong with that
as long as you always remember
it's just speculation.
So keep experimenting, keep discovering
and keep an open mind
for where the next "Citizen Kane" or "The Room" could possibly come from.
I'm The Nostalgia Critic
and don't worry, I won't be this fair the rest of the month.
*Insidious laughter*
Hey!
Sorry for the handheld here.
I uh, left my tripod at the office.
But uh, that's not what you wanna hear about,
you wanna hear what the charity shout-out is this week
and you can thank Rob Paulson for his introduction to
this charity, without him I wouldn't' have found out about this.
This is Boot Campaign.
Boot Campaign is trying to raise awareness for veterans.
People that have gone to war.
People that have served us.
People that have put their lives in danger.
People who have sacrificed so much.
The campaign helps raise awareness of their sacrifice
through the image of boots.
Their big question is "Why do you wear your boots?".
People go online and share their stories about why the
soldiers who have served us mean so much to us.
And as you imagine it isn't just buying boots and showing support,
it's going online and donating.
And one of the great things is that they show where the money is going.
This is an organization that has gotten all sorts of celebrities on board
Like I said, Rob Paulson
but also the "Sons of Anarachy" cast.
This is a great idea to raise awareness for people who definitely deserve it.
The bravery and the dedication that these soldiers put forward
is mind-blowing
and you can show your support by either going to the web-site
or even going to their YouTube page and seeing all the
various stories.
You can volunteer, you can donate
or you can just wear your boots,
which are also available to purchase on the web-site
and help raise awareness and show support.
Get online and tell everybody why you wear your boots.