Well, at one time, you’ve got it… and then you lose it… and it’s gone forever. All walks of life: George Best, for example. Had it, lost it. Or David Bowie, or Lou Reed…
-Sick Boy
That you’ve even heard of these guys is reason enough to believe that they had “it” at one point or another, the cream having risen to the top. What we have here is a list of directors who were once the toast of the toast, but over the course of time, for any number of reasons, have lost their magic touch. Whether it’s falling behind the times, or letting their skills go stale, or maybe they fooled everyone into believe they were talented in the first place, the following five have lost “it”.
5. Brian de Palma
To be honest, up until about a week ago, I never thought he ever “had it” to begin with. In my estimation, his best known and most beloved work, Scarface, owes its greatness to Al Pacino’s performance more than De Palma’s guiding hand, and I could say the thing about Connery and The Untouchables. Honestly, De Palma hangs too much of his films on the performance of its star. Now having seen Carrie, I can see that there might have been a time when he had a knack for telling stories with moving pictures in order to generate an emotional response.
Crowning Achievement: Scarface
First Sign of Trouble: Bonfire of the Vanities
All time low: Mission to Mars
4. George Lucas
Believe it or not, there was a time when George Lucas was known for more than just milking the Star Wars franchise. After his oddly prophetic THX 1138 (certainly indicator of his affectation for raw capitalism) he directed the Happy Days launching point American Graffiti. In Star Wars he was able to play the ultimate auteur, overseeing just about every aspect of the production, and while it might rate as one of the most influential films of the latter half of the 20th century, it’s not exactly known for it’s skillful directing so much as its bold vision and original ideas. Back then, the was the only one capable of realizing his vision, but if the second and third films of the original series were any indication, all it took from him was a nudge in the right direction to get the franchise rolling. Since planting himself back in the director’s chair, he’s exposed his inability to distinguish between the role of a director and a producer.
Crowning Achievement: Star Wars
First Sign of Trouble: The Phantom Menace
All time low: Revenge of the Sith
3. Oliver Stone
Oliver Stone has never really been my cup of tea, but I have at least always respected him as one of the great modern American filmmakers. He’s demonstrated a knack for being able to adapt to the sporadic evolution of how we tell stories on screen, but after checking out his latest work I think we’ve finally established the limit of his faculties. His desperate and sloppy attempts to give Money Never Sleeps a modern look and feel with hamfisted split screens was just embarrassing.
Crowning Achievement: Platoon
First Sign of Trouble: Alexander
All time low: Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps
2. Terry Gilliam
This really breaks my heart, but the writing’s on the wall for this Python alumnus. He was my favorite director for about as long as I’ve loved moving pictures, taking his dreams and nightmares directly from his brain and splattering them all over the screen – he’s never let anything stand in the way of realizing his vision. But after all his battles with the studios for creative control, he must be getting a little punch drunk. Gilliam’s satyrical style relies on him being on the cutting edge, and as evidenced by his use of such symbols as bobbies dancing the can-can, I get the impression he’s holding onto the past to tightly.
Crowning Achievement: The Fisher King
First Sign of Trouble: Brothers Grimm
All time low: Tideland
1. M Night Shyamalan
Nobody exemplifies the modern crash and burn better than the M. Night. While there might be some who question whether he ever had it in the first place, there is no doubt that The Sixth Sense was an impressive film on many fronts and Unbreakable remains a personal favourite of mine. Beyond those achievements, it became clear that not only was he a one trick pony, but that his creative resources at hand to conceal this shortcoming were also in short supply.
Crowning Achievement: Unbreakable
First Sign of Trouble: The Village
All time low: The Happening
I agree with you about all of these choices. I think that George Lucas was not taken seriously as a director.
I would have thought the guy would have had more directing credits to his name. For a guy of his stature and fame, you think his professional directing credits would outnumber his student projects.
Seems like a lot of low-hanging fruit here, especially with 1, 4, and 5. What, no Joel Schumacher?
Respect for putting Stone and Gilliam on here, especially Gilliam, given how much you love him. Of course, I greatly enjoyed Parnassus and still don’t understand what you hated so much about it, but I haven’t seen either Tideland or Grimm, so you may very well be right overall. Let’s blame it on Don Quixote.
There might have been a few lobs in there, but they would have been conspicuously absent otherwise. Stone was the inspiration for the list in the first place, and De Palma was the curiosity of the bunch, having always been in the company of greatness without being so great himself.
Gilliam’s fall from grace has been a tough one to take – and I have to admire the man’s tenacity. But when nature keeps conspiring to keep him down, you have to start looking at other reasons that nature remains such a factor. Perhaps if he played ball a little more with the studios he’d have better production insurance and more avenues out of tight spots… I’m rambling though, fighting off cold-induced delirium.
Interesting post, Steve. I see why each of these directors merits your pick. My contributor just posted a similar list of ‘hack directors,’ and M Night also made the list. Some people also wondered why Schumacher was missing from that list
There’s that name again! I’ve just never felt that Schumacher ever really had “it” to begin with. He’s never really been my cup of tea. I think this is one of those times where I wish I did longer lists though – there’s just so many to complain about.
I’m going to be controversial and say that I doubt Shymalan never really had “it”. The Sixth Sense is a one trick pony which doesn’t hold together after first viewing. I love Unbreakable, but it seems like a “fluke” rather than a genuine expression of talent – can you have “it” with a single great film? Signs was average, and the rest of his films… well…
I kinda agree with Fletch, but Schumacher seems to let “it” come and go. Producing Phone Booth AFTER Batman & Robin, for example.
Nothing wrong with a little controversy around here! But never had “it”? Really? His schtick might have gotten a little tired, and Lady in the Water was a seriously self-indulgent piece of garbage, but I was very impressed with The Sixth Sense. The use of music, great photography, and getting great performances out of everyone involved: Even Donnie Wahlberg! I have a deep affection for Unbreakable, among the few films I’ve seen in theatres more than once (like Scott Pilgrim!). Signs was pretty good and The Village was definitely interesting, especially considering the cast, but yeah, he’s certainly fallen off, but I wouldn’t call him a one hit wonder.
Schumacher has never had “it” as far as I’m concerned, unless you call “it” inexplicable access to an immense Hollywood budget.
I agree with Darren. He is a one-hit wonder and let’s face it, people can get lucky once in the right situation with the right people around you. I’m astonished at how long it took for Hollywood to realize he was a hack.
This is an odd feeling I have – should I be defending the guy? I mean, I made it very clear when I cleared him out of my “favourite directors” section that he had no business in there anymore. But he did earn a place in there with two very impressive films, and held on y the tips of his fingernails for a couple films after that… Signs was pretty good, wasn’t it? Maybe cornfields are easy pickings for setting suspense… not sure if that has to do with films that have come before or not…
Having seen No Strings Attached this weekend, I’d add Ivan Reitman to that list:(
At his age, he certainly fits the profile. Although his time may have come somewhere around the release of Junior or Twins. Still have so much love for Dave and Ghostbusters though.
I definitely agree with your naming Lucas and Especially Shamalan. Its almost like you could plot their descent on a graph. With each film getting worse than the next. I just wish Lucas would stop ruining his older works by adding extra scenes and dramatically changing character motivations with his awful “special editions’! (I would hate to see his American Grafitti “special edition”— with Ryan Seacrest replacing Wolfman Jack—come on – you know that is something he would do!)
I must say you do put forth a good argument for the other three however I think Gilliam is finding his way through his madness and will eventually put forth something close to the greatness of Brazil and Time Bandits(yes I am hopeful). Oliver Stone I disagree with if simply for his style that puts forth a ton of information organized in a fascinating and compelling way of storytelling.(Brilliantly done in JFK and to a lesser degree W. and Wall Streeet 2 minus shia of course). DePalma I don’t want to believe it but I would have to concede as the first half of his career has more brilliance, scene for scene, than the latter films he has made.
I think if we were to plot Lucas’ descent it would look more like a precipice to a terrible doom!
I think that South Park best expressed my feelings on Lucas’ role in tweaking his past works, so I don’t need to get into it here. While I believe that culture can and should be constantly in flux, I believe that we shouldn’t be messing with a classic unless there’s more to be gained than just more money.
Gilliam is my favourite among favourites, but he hasn’t created anything nearly as insightful as Brazil, 12 Monkeys or Fear & Loathing in a very long time. Fingers crossed though!
As far as Stone’s Wall Street 2 attempt, maybe his style was way off because he was trying to do a more literal sequel to the first one, and done in that kind of style, rather than having something stylistically different, having only the characters in common and that’s it. He’s touch and go with his movies nowadays though, it’ll all hinge on his next one.
Great list. I agree with you on Brain de Palma. I’ve always thought he was overrated, and so is Scarface.
My must-be-included director for this particular list would be John Carpenter. What has happened to him over the last fifteen years? I haven’t seen The Ward yet, but after the disaster that was Ghosts of Mars my hopes aren’t high.
I actually really enjoyed Vampires, but I’m with you 100%. Carpenter is the definition of the word “relic”, although I don’t think he’s ever pretended to be anything but. There’s something about having “John Carpenter’s” before the titles of any of his films that just screams “fossil”. But from that perspective, I’m thinking he’s always wielded the same degree of talent, he’s just meant for one era. I’ll just cross my fingers that he doesn’t try to make a sequel to Starman.
If his habits of late are anything to go by, it’s more likely he’ll just allow someone else to remake Starman badly instead.
That was the fear I didn’t want to put into words. Why be constrained with the continuity demands of a sequel when the franchise can be rebooted? Why bring on a cranky old director when you can hire an ambitious new one you can control?
hi Gilliam is my favourite among favourites, but he hasn’t created anything nearly as insightful as Brazil, 12 Monkeys or Fear & Loathing in a very long time. Fingers crossed though!
I think Terry should have made the jump to Producer a long time ago, although he’s not exactly known for handling money well. Perhaps a collaboration with a younger, crazier director might be worth a try?