Consistency vs. Experimentation

Would you mount a similar defense for Tim Burton?  He's been in his wheelhouse for the better part of the last fifteen years.

 

And I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm genuinely curious.  Why do we want to allow some directors to keep making the same kind of films over and over again, but some get nailed to the cross for it?

We're fickle, and we resist the unknown or unproven. We want novelty, but also familiarity. When an audience thinks they know what they want, it's up to the artist to give them what they need.

 

Also, it depends upon the artist, and the wheelhouse. Here are two people who have essentially re-made the same movie ten times: Eric Rohmer and Adam Sandler. Discuss.

I think a really good artist can create variation even within a generally similar structure, and be no less creative for having done something familiar. There's an old classical-music joke that "Vivaldi wrote one concerto - and then re-wrote it five hundred times," but I don't think anybody's actually dissing the man's work by that.

We had this discussion in 2006 with Casino Royale. In that case (but not only there) i'm siding with experimentation. My brain doesn't like to be bored and is not easily surprised. So the unusual approach is the most interesting for me personally, but i think objectively you can argue in the same way: A new approach is objectively better than the same stuff over again.

I'm curious, how exactly is that "objective?"

If the filmmaker/artist has something to say or express, that thing they want to say or express will dictate the need for consistency or experimentation. Consistency usually indicates an concern for the body of work as a whole thing - experimentation suggests a need or desire to create a contrasting work or statement.

commodorejohn:

It's me trying to be objective. I'm not saying it works ;-)

To me this all has to do with relevance. Wes Anderson (whose work I really love) seems to have more interesting things to say in his particular style. Woody Allen has arguably been making the same film repeatedly for thirty years, but I still find value in his stuff too. Commodorejohn's point about Vivaldi is well made, I think: spend some time with a Bob Dylan fanatic and try to keep track of the supposed nuance that distinguishes a 70's performance of 'Sad-eyed Lady of the Lowlands' versus a 90's performance of the same song. The point is that Dylan is still a relevant artist who's interpretation of his own work are smart, examined and germane to the time, whatever time it happens to be. 

Anderson is thoughtful funny and interested in exploring some of the deeper reaches of the family experience; Adam Sandler makes poo-poo jokes. Whose act is going to get tired sooner? 

Gabe T is right on the money talking about this w/r/t music, as to me it's the side of show business that moves fastest, ages quickest and is most prone to eating itself. It's a rare musician who can maintain a long career of constant experimentation (Neil Young is one) and keep a high profile.

I believe that some people like to be threatened by the art they consume, while others (most, in fact), like to be comforted. This is why way more people saw Grown-Ups than Inland Empire, and why The Hunger Games made more money in a month than Battle Royale did in ten years.

And yeah, sometimes I seek out the familiar or unthreatening. I paid money to see American Reunion when I could have seen A Separation instead, because it had been a hard day and I needed to laugh (seeing AR was not the way to go, obviously).

But there still is no excuse for Tim Burton.