Saturday 24 February 2007

Saturday

The quote by Jean Renoir, above, seemed when I first heard it to confirm everything I ever thought. Now, however, I am beginning to doubt its consistency. When applied to some filmmakers it appears true. For example, you could say Woody Allen made one good film, Annie Hall, and has been remaking it again and again since then. We wait to see if someone like Wes Anderson can break free of The Royal Tennenbaums (I don't think he quite did with The Life Aquatic). It might seem like Kubrick broke new ground with every movie. He covered almost every major genre, but the stylistics were the same throughout. And whilst Spielberg's movies are very different throughout his career, there is a continuity of sentiment. What, then, does Renoir mean? He obviously means something beyond the simple and obvious, and this points to sentiment and stylistics. But I think there is always something else which escapes this. I think great filmmmakers, like Kubrick and Spielberg, never make the same film twice. I even think, perhaps, that Woody Allen too escapes. There is always some slippage, some fissure, which undermines the 'one film for life' principle Renoir espouses.

2 comments:

Alex Andronov said...

Perhaps the best example of the different kinds of movies from one director might be Ridley Scott.

Gladiator, Blade Runner, A Good Year, Thelma and Louise? There is seemingly no common strand between them. Except for really good set design and you have to be really paying attention to see that as a theme.

Nick Ollivère said...

Ah, Ridley. There does seem to be no connection, except as you say set design, but I would add to that cinematography. At one point it might seem he was interested in strong female characters ('Alien'), but that didn't continue for long. Weren't we saying the other day that he never takes sides on his films?

The Hateful Eight

Tarantino has said he'll only make ten films, and then retire. I don't know if he still stands by this statement, and if he does we ...