Brian DePalma-what happened?

[otisbenny]

Brian DePalma was, in my opinion, one of the great horror/suspence directors of the 70's and 80's. From '73 to '87 were his prime years (sort of like John Carpenter). During this phase he made Sisters, Obsession, Carrie, The Fury, Dressed To Kill, Blow Out, Scarface and The Untouchables. Since then his films mainly been crap (Bonfire Of The Vanities, Raising Cain,Snake Eyes, Mission To Mars, Femme Fatale, The Black Dahlia, Redacted). Only Carlito's Way and Mission:Impossible rise above the dreck. Why do you think some directors can sustain long-term greatness and others (Carpenter, DePalma, Michael Cimino) can't? I could arguably put GAR into this category as well, but I don't wanna start THAT discussion.

[PJoseph]

You raise a very good question. I too am a big fan of DePalma's work - especially the films you mention. Why a director cannot sustain, I have no clue, but it saddens me. I was pumped for Dahlia (they shot some in my old apartment, where Short was supposed to have lived for a while) and the movie just fell apart. I think, to some extent, the may get lazy about their passion - they get used to filmmaking in an easy environment - as opposed to when they started out and the whole creative world was open to them. pJ

[Mike70]

Brian DePalma was, in my opinion, one of the great horror/suspence directors of the 70's and 80's. From '73 to '87 were his prime years (sort of like John Carpenter). During this phase he made Sisters, Obsession, Carrie, The Fury, Dressed To Kill, Blow Out, Scarface and The Untouchables. Since then his films mainly been crap (Bonfire Of The Vanities, Raising Cain,Snake Eyes, Mission To Mars, Femme Fatale, The Black Dahlia, Redacted). Only Carlito's Way and Mission:Impossible rise above the dreck. Why do you think some directors can sustain long-term greatness and others (Carpenter, DePalma, Michael Cimino) can't? I could arguably put GAR into this category as well, but I don't wanna start THAT discussion. i think a lot of it has to do with the projects they choose to take on. some folks just make poor decisions about the scripts they want to direct. lots of things look great on paper but are shit on film. another factor very well could be age. some folks have to the tendency to lose their edge as they get older. there are lots of potential reasons for this, one of them very well could be that the person just doesn't feel that they have the same sorts of things to prove at 60 that they did at 30. the few directors that have produced great film after great film (some well into their 80s) like bergman, hitchcock, and kurosawa (no he didn't live to his 80s but is still an example of someone who continuously made great movies) seemed to be very astute in the choices of projects that they took on. whether this is luck, skill, the advice of the folks around or a combination of all 3 is a matter for a whole other debate. edit: i forgot to add that like otis and PJ, i am a big fan of a lot of depalma's early work. in the 70s and early 80s it looked like he was destined to become one of the truely great american directors ever.

[MoonSylver]

Agree w/ PJ & Mike 100%. Keeping the hunger, the fire in the belly is vital. Retaining the passion for movie making is a big factor.Choice of projects, ditto. I think staying humble, not becoming a victim of your own success, & remaining free of hubris is another critical factor. Some become totally burned out & disillusioned by Hollywood (Carpenter is a good example). Some have one flop & just stumble & loose their confidence, never to return. Some just plain ol' loose sight of their vision. Might be that there are some who only have a few good films in them & then they're done. I've thought of this often in regards to some of my favorite horror directors, like Carpenter & Romero, & just in general. Seems like in most ANY field of creative endeavor, there are a number who are "1 hit wonders", a number more who put together a decent body of work, but it's either hit & miss, or they knock a few out in a row & then burn out & fade away, & then the smallest percentage who can actually sustain.

[Skippy911sc]

I think we expect their movies to get increasingly better, and in comparison to today's films, I believe they have staying the same. I like snake eyes, and raising cain was not the most horrid attempt at suspense, but it is true when compared with their other works these do pale in comparison. Look at all the greats...Spielberg, Lucas (Ouch) Kubrick, Wells...the list goes on and on, they all had their greats and LOSERS, I think the movies that appear at the end of their tnure are, unfortunately, the one we may very well remember most..

[Philly_SWAT]

It is hard to say why DePalma hasnt maintained the level he used to have. I too am I big fan of his early work. I havent seen The Black Dahlia or Redacted, so I cant comment on them. I thought that 'Bonfire" was OK, and actually I think Mission to Mars was pretty good. Carlito's Way was awesome, but maybe that is because Pacino is one of my all time favorites. It may be that in his earlier works, his unique directing style made his movies stand above the crowd...now that relative newcomers have come along with their own impressive techniques (Christopher Nolan for example), DePalma doesnt have the impact he once did, with most of his comtemporaries still around, as well as newcomers. Spike Lee is another example of a newcomer (OK he has been around for a while, but...) who has refined his style and progressed as a filmmaker.

[Skippy911sc]

Spike Lee is another example of a newcomer (OK he has been around for a while, but...) who has refined his style and progressed as a filmmaker. I couldn't agree with you more...I think Lee's movies have actually been getting better as of late.

[RustyHicks]

DePalma's movies are classics now, (the 70's and 80's) ones I mean, I don't know why some directors change their styles, or just die away, I think some just think they have the money now, they'll become lazy, make what they want and it will become a hit anyways. Not all are like that. George Lucas was brilliant in the 70 and 80's with his Star Wars trilogy and then the Indianna Jones movies he made, now the newest Trilogy, just doesn't have that same feel to it as the first did, it was more like he was going to milk the franchise for all it's worth...I know I will get my head kicked off for bitting into Lucas, but that was the sense I got from his latest films. Maybe Depalma hit his streak of success in the 80 and 70's and just lost it, not because of his talent, but maybe because he's trying to please this Generation by changing his styles to match what they want.