The movies you mention aren't favorites of mine. "Being John Malcovitch" didn't appeal to me as much as it did to a lot of people: I thought it was contrived, and to begin with, John Malcovitch is NOT someone I'd want to ever even for two seconds fantasize about being. "Royal Tenenbaums" didn't charm me the way it was supposed to; again, it seemed arch and contrived. And "O Brother! Where Art Thou?" seemed to me to make a mockery of country singers and country people; I guess I didn't get the joke, and I'm not a huge Coen brothers fan--I'm one of those who think not every one of their movies is pure gold. (I love "Blood Simple" and "Barton Fink" though, and I respect their integrity in choosing to remain independent and offbeat.)
In their continuing to make the same kind of movies despite being financially fairly secure (I think), the Coen brothers are like Woody Allen. How about Woody Allen? His Oscar night appearance was a rare occurence, but he's really a HOllywood icon. He's consistent, boringly so, in maintaining his persona from film to film, ad infinitum, so the fact that he can get as much as he needs of cash and stars doesn't change him any.
Some great European directors who were able to do the same kind of stylish, individual work over and over eventually completely burned out and had nothing left to say: my best example would be Antonioni.
I feel a little uncomfortable talking about this topic, though, because I don't know enough about the economics of movies to really classfiy all these films as to cost and size.
I agree, of course, that small budget doesn't mean good. I go by the assumption that generally it costs a lot of bucks to make a movie, even if Richard Rodriguez made "El Mariachi" for $7,000.
"Small doesn't mean good" makes me think of Miguel Arteta, a small budget director whose work I seem to loathe. I think "Star Maps" was bad, and "Chuck and Buck" was terrible. But he may be in a category as I mentioned when talking about "PUmpkin" of movies reflecting a younger sensibility to which it's good to be weird or geeky. I think the young audience may misread Arteta. They think he's cool, while his movies are just bad. But I have to go and see his latest movie to see if I'm right about that.
M. NIght Shyamalan, whom I started out with, is completely different. He doesn't want to be offbeat; he wants to be mainstream. He wants to make movies that cost a lot of money. He wants to be hugely famous, and he wants to be a household word. He wants to form a bond with an audience--a very large audience--such that they will go out to see his latest movie because it's M. Night, not because it's Mel Gibson or Bruce Willis (but just to be on the safe side, he puts them in his movies--which is just what Hitchcock was and did). And I have no problem with this, if he can carry it off and still do something good once in a while. But Shyamalan has a schlocky sensibility in a way that Soderbergh, say, never will; Soderbergh may gradually be "selling out" in some sense, but Soderbergh is hip. Shyamalan isn't hip; but he's something much more powerful: he has the ability to chill and thrill and move you.
Bookmarks