Directorial Diversion: Stay the Course or Boldy Go?

Not long ago, I was listening to Row Three's Cinecast, and the gents were discussing Todd Solondz's latest film Life During Wartime, specifically in how it compared to his previous films, Happiness in particular. Generally, praise was given to the film, though it was at times tempered with quotes along the lines of "that's just Solondz doing what he does." A bit later on the same conversation, Wes Anderson came up, as did Wong Kar-wai, in the same context. Kurt mentioned how much it bothered him that certain directors are shit upon for, more or less, making the same movie over and over again, that their quality should stand above their relative newness. The Darjeeling Limited was a key example.

I couldn't disagree more.

An artist that makes a great piece of art, and then does little more than duplicate said piece ad nauseum ceases to be an artist and instead transforms into a wannabe of their own work. To cease to take risks is not only cowardly but boring. I was one of those people that blasted Anderson for Darjeeling; in my review, I stated that "Anderson needs to branch out or change some things up lest he be deemed irrelevant in the near future." Thankfully, he took a giant leap towards doing just that with Fantastic Mr. Fox, a departure in form if not style - but it's a big start, and more importantly, it felt like a risk.

Where the conversation really gets interesting is when its applied to music. We seem to want to have it both ways with artists. On the one hand, we (me) celebrate The Beatles for starting as a straight-up pop band and, within an infinitesimally small period of time for a musical act, became something altogether different, playing with sitars, metal, and cascading, intersecting melodies and arrangements. For their growth, they are universally acclaimed, where had they stayed a boy band into their 30s, they might well be forgotten.

On the other hand, witness rock legends such as the Rolling Stones or Aerosmith or even U2. The former two have, for the most part, made no significant changes to the style of music they've played since...ever, and were they to at this point, they would be widely ridiculed (assuming they are even relevant at this time, which they really aren't). The latter has taken more of a Beatle-ish route, occasionally delving into other genres while maintaining generally the same level of popularity. But back to film.

Take a look around at any of the celebrated directors of the past few decades, and more often than not, they will be risk-takers, more than willing to step outside of their comfort zone (if they were even ever pushed into one): Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorcese, Steven Spielberg, David Fincher...

...and the subject of this month's LAMBs in the Director Chair series, Steven Soderbergh.

If there's anything Soderbergh has proven over the last 20 years, it's his versatility and unwillingness to be typecast. Covering everything from celluloid to digital video, independents to big budget extravaganzas, comedies to dramas to documentaries and everything in between, Soderbergh is the biggest director currently working that's also nearly impossible to pin down. You might not love or even be interested in everything that he's done (I consider myself a fan and yet have not seen 12 of his 20 films), but you can rest assured with the fact that whatever is next on his radar is likely different from what you've previously seen from him.

So where do you stand: Stay the Course or Boldly Go?