Hey guys
Lately I write lot of posts about movies and series now lets talk about some directors
Of the entire generation of boomer directors who were nurtured in the New Hollywood climate of artistic impertinence/independence of the '70s and then became the dominant exponents of the new studio spirit of Hollywood blockbusters from the '80s onwards, the only one who still has the ability to making really good (or even genuinely interesting) movies from the first generation of these blockbuster directors with a personal stamp is Ridley Scott, who even he is notoriously uneven.
Let's take them in order.
Steven Spielberg has been making a really good movie since 2002's Catch Me If You Can (personally, I rank Minority Report from the same year higher). Since then, it's ranged from the unremarkable and mediocre (Terminal, War of the Worlds, War Horse, The Post, Ready Player One, there's a lot) to the merely good (Munich, Bridge of Spies, West Side Story ). It certainly still holds its own, but it seems unable to create anything genuinely interesting or evolve its cinematic style.
George Lucas, the man with whom they sealed the transition from New Hollywood to the new studio system of blockbusters and franchises, dux, let's not discuss it better.
James Cameron, who along with Scott formed the archetypal duo of the blockbuster director with a clear artistic vision and penchant for manufacturing perfection, has been locked in a psychotic descent into self-destruction by designing 678 Avatar movies and no one seems to really love him enough to tell him, come on, please, for your sake, relax, let it go.
Ron Howard, eternal crowd-pleaser and also classic director/producer, in the last 20 years if we exclude some flashes (Frost/Nixon for example) he has been immersed in lukewarm and unnerved Oscar-baiting biographical dramas (Cinderella Man, In the Heart of the Sea, Hillbilly Elegy, let's say Rush is saved even though I'm not a crazy fan) and on the other hand in Dan Brown films (which ok, I have them full for guilty pleasure, but you don't call them good films).
Robert Zemeckis, another great crowd-pleaser of the 80s, has been making a good movie for god knows how long. If I wanted to be a villain, I'd say from Death Becomes Her. If not, I'd say from Cast Away. In any case, it's been 20 years, during which he's developed an obsession with bad 3D motion capture, from The Polar Express and Beowulf to Christmas Carol and Welcome to Marwen.
John McTiernan, the great master of the action blockbuster, has been missing for the last 15 years, having been involved in prisons, bankruptcies, etc. And before that, of course, he had not offered anything special for several years - although I personally love Last Action Hero and consider it natural decent Die Hard with a Vengeance.
And finally Tony Scott (RIP), to close the list with the other action master of the 80s (much more stylish, of course), he had a good movie to make since Enemy of the State in '98 (and Spy Game in '98 01). Lots of disappointing mediocrity since then - although Unstoppable, the film he made before his death in 2012, was quite entertaining.
The point of today's post is not that directors make bad movies as they get older. This post is not an ok-boomer-post. Equally, there are plenty of filmmakers of the same generation who mature as they get older and make great films - from Herzog, Lynch and Almodovar to Schrader, Cronenberg and Scorsese (or even older ones like Godard and Jodorowsky). The mainstream cinema directors of the 80s and 90s who shaped our moviegoing experiences through their first intake of pop culture, however, have mostly aged pretty badly creatively.
Of course, to some extent, this is the price of the dominance of the modern studio system which tends to suppress the emergence of radicalism and originality for the sake of homogeneity, safety and efficiency. That's how capitalist industries are. Like all, the cultural one alienates even the strongest players.
