MCN Blogs
Noah Forrest

By Noah Forrest

Directors Selling Out

I had a long discussion the other day with my buddy Jack about how disappointed I was that Darren Aronofsky was going to be making the sequel to Wolverine as his next film.  Part of me understands that Aronofsky has made his first five films for no money – and probably didn’t make much money himself.  He even said at one point that he was tired of being the only person in the room that wants to make a movie and that with the Wolverine sequel, there are many people at the studio that want him to make this movie.  I get all that and I can even respect that.

But I can’t put him in the same tier as Wes Anderson or Paul Thomas Anderson or Lukas Moodysson, who make the films they want to make.  I think there’s certainly a paucity of original voices out there and I can’t help but think that when one of them chooses a comic book project, that’s one less original film they might have made.  It takes years to make a movie and I would rather those years be spent on projects that don’t have the ceiling of a big blockbuster film or comic book movie.  This goes for David Fincher, too, by the way.  I happen to think he’s one of the five best directors working today, but he’s also made Alien 3, Panic Room and the upcoming Girl with the Dragon Tattoo remake, so I can’t really put him on the level of those original filmmakers either.

I thought about all this today with the news that Gareth Edwards, director of one of the underrated films of the year Monsters, is attached to make yet another version of Godzilla.  To me, it just seems like such a waste of talent.  Edwards has already made that movie and made it better because he didn’t have hundreds of millions of dollars at his disposal.  I couldn’t wait to see how he was going to follow up Monsters; now, I feel like shrugging.

The point is: do you think Terrence Malick would make a Batman movie?  Do you think Woody Allen would have directed Godzilla?  Is Harmony Korine ever going to make a movie like Harry Potter or Twilight?

What do you think, am I off-base here?  Who are some filmmakers who would never make a “sell out” film?

Be Sociable, Share!

17 Responses to “Directors Selling Out”

  1. Dan says:

    I’m not sure it’s fair to call “Alien 3” a sell-out film. Fincher’s music video work got him the job, which in turn let him make “Seven.” He proved his chops, and as a result, studios were more willing to cut him bigger checks and let him take his vision to material that more closely suited his interests and skills.

  2. James says:

    Aronofsky said something on NPR along the lines of Black Swan – I’m the only one in the room who wants to make that movie. Wolverine – EVERYONE in the room wants to make that movie. Can you blame him for not jumping at that? Woody Allen has a SWEETHEART grandfathered in deal where he can make anything. Aronofsky has to fight to get movies made and then only at severe budget cuts.

    Studios want to make movies not films. Can’t blame a guy for wanting to make a living.

    PT Anderson cant even get his next movie made. Think he’s happy?

  3. established 1962 says:

    surprised you didn’t mention “Tru Grit” in the discussion. I would like to see Gaspar Noe make a Godzilla reboot.

    Scorsese could be said to have sold out on “Shutter Island” (could…) (or The Departed, or Shine a Light)

    Altman and Popeye.

    Werner has even sold out this year.

    Lynch is possibly the only filmmaker to not sellout (The Straight Story, though, is an interesting argument)

    Aronofsky has always struck me as a filmmaker who was bound to “sell out”— I seem to remember that write up he did for NYT about GTA3.

    Malick is the purist here. Your other examples don’t even hold up— Woody Allen’s entire 90’s output could be seen as “selling out” (in terms of his output and his work schedule, every movie is a sell out in some ways for him). And Harmony Korine has never had the opportunity to sell out: no way to tell whether he would or not.

  4. Keil Shults says:

    “Selling out” is fine with me, as long as the end result is a really good one. In fact, if the final product is good, can you really call it selling out?

    Greengrass took on the Bourne sequels and delivered some of the best action films of the past decade.

    Alfonso Cuaron delivered one of the best entries in the Harry Potter series, if not THE best.

    And let us not forget Christopher Nolan and his Batman installments.

    Some might have seen adapting children’s stories like Where the Wild Thing Are and Fantastic Mr. Fox as selling out, although finally seeing the films made it clear the directors had followed their own visions, even if it meant sacrificing mainstream appeal in the process.

    And as that last example suggests, “selling out” is a relative term. Someone might claim that Lynch sold out by making a straightforward movie like The Straight Story, because it seemed to be the complete opposite of his typically bizarre style. But can anyone honestly consider making a feature-length drama about an old man crossing the country on a tractor a form of selling out?

    I will say that it bummed me out to read that Aronofsky was taking on the next Wolverine film, largely because I haven’t been a huge fan of the X-Men films in general, and the first Wolverine film in particular. But I’m holding out hope that Aronofsky will do something with the character that makes me sit back and become thoroughly engrossed in the material.

    It’s also not fair that people like Aronofsky or Cuaron have to be subjected to the “sell-out” label when guys like Michael Bay avoid it altogether by simply being schlockmeisters from the get-go.

  5. christian says:

    Some of you should know that THE STRAIGHT STORY is one of Mynch’s most experimental films – a G-Rated Disney meditation.

  6. Josh says:

    So your saying all directors, in order to be good, have to do low budget films for the rest of their lives?

    I also think you should read the 4 issue story arc ‘The Wolverine’ will be based on, definitely Darren Aronofsky material.

  7. christian says:

    “Mynch” = Lynch. Thank you.

    And it ain’t selling out if the director wants to actually do the script or story.

  8. established 1962 says:

    there is NOTHING wrong with “selling out” (ESPECIALLY if that means “true grit” or “the straight story” or “Inside Man” or whatever!)

    selling out is part of life, if it wasn’t we would all wind up as either some artist who burnt out at a young age or some aging hipster who can’t realize that art isn’t just for him or herself.

    i find it interesting that we haven’t come up with a euphamism for this type of selling out. There are obviously the directors that whore themselves out for money constantly (though soderbergh is like the 4.0 english major who strips on the side). What’s interesting is that the only way for a director to be actually relevant is for there to be a discussion of said director selling out. You aren’t going to have that discussion for the strictly arthouse directors, nor the lowest common denomenator ones. The discussion only happens to the directors in the middle, and that is where the most work needs to be done in terms of quality and budget on average joe theater screens. directors like scorsese and aronofsky making a dent on everyman filmgoers is what is truly important in advancing the popular episteme. so selling out is kind of just like cashing in on the directors hopes of the average persons interests. that’s a little too long for a nice little euphamism— but you get the point.

  9. hcat says:

    Do you only feel this way about directors or do you have the same standard for actors? Craig did wonderful work in small films, did he sell out by being Bond? For Dragon Tatoo? Does Denzel sell out by working in action movies as opposed to doing drama over and over again?

    I am not a fan of the glut of superhero films but Arnofsky is actually a brillant choice for Wolverine. If he can deliver an action film with an undercurrent of Cronenbergian body horror that is natural for the charecter, more power to him.

    Everyone laments that the studio go too often to Bay and Ratner, but then when they give a film to an actual filmmaker you cry foul.

    as for 1962, with the possible exception of O13, I can’t think of an instance where Soderbergh has ‘Sold Out.’ I think he is making exactly the movies he wants to make, the way he wants to make them, and it comes through onscreen that he is having a blast doing it.

  10. Noah Forrest says:

    See, hcat, I never lament when Michael Bay or Brett Ratner do films like Rush Hour or Transformers. I might question why those films need to be made at all, but I’m happy that Bay and Ratner are busy making those films rather than given the reins of something that might actually be good had they not been involved. So, hell, I hope they keep making Transformers and Rush Hour movies just so Ratner and Bay will stay away from good projects.

    I don’t hold actors to the same standard, though, because an actor can make three or four films a year; a director cannot. Directors taking on a project means that that filmmaker will be busy for at least 18 months, probably longer (unless you’re Woody Allen).

    But the truth is that I think “selling out” is a silly term and I should have put it in quotes throughout this post. I understand why a director like Aronofsky wants to make money and I can’t blame him because I might very well do the same. But there’s a difference between art and commerce and I selfishly would rather he continue to be an artist rather than a commercial director.

    P.S. As for The Straight Story, that’s not a sell-out film at all. In fact, it might be my favorite Lynch film; poignant, heartbreaking, and beautiful.

  11. hcat says:

    “I understand why a director like Aronofsky wants to make money and I can’t blame him because I might very well do the same.”

    You are assigning a completly mercenary motivation for Aronofsky to do Wolverine. He had been attached at previous times to Batman and Robocop. Judging from his work in The Fountain, big budget action might be where he wants to spend some time. He will be able to work with more images and perhaps with more freedom since in a lot of ways the mall audience is less discerning and judgemental than the cinefile crowd.

  12. Noah Forrest says:

    “Judging from his work in The Fountain, big budget action might be where he wants to spend some time.”

    His work in The Fountain doesn’t really speak to the idea of his wanting to be a big-time action filmmaker. It’s a love story that has little to no action besides two or three small scenes in the conquistador section.

    As for your assertion that just because Aronofsky was attached to other potential blockbuster movies before, then he’s not merely motivated by money now; well, I would argue almost the exact opposite. I’d say he’s wanted to make money for a while, but things kept falling apart or he wasn’t swayed enough from doing the projects he actually cared about. I’m not blaming him for doing this and I’m trying to guess intent based on filmography, which is a fool’s errand probably. But if you put all of Aronofsky’s movies in a row, including Wolverine, and asked which of these films is not like the other, I think the answer would be pretty clear.

  13. hcat says:

    Sorry, I wasn’t clear about the Fountain, I should have said if you look at it as working on a larger canvas The Fountain is closer to Wolverine than the others. But you are right that Wolverine is a change in direction, I think some of us are just saying you shouldn’t guess his intentions for the change in course.

    Now for me Dragon seems to be a larger change in direction. He has done thrillers before but none of them have really descended to the level of the type of airport reading that Dragon Tattoo is. Now I have no doubt that he can raise the level of the material, but the question is how much? This is his third movie dealing with a serial killer but his earlier two were hardly the routine programers that this seems destined to be.

  14. James says:

    I see it two ways:

    1. Aronofsky really wanted to make a samurai movie, as his previous passion to make a new Lone Wolf and Cub movie several years ago can attest to, as well as his outspoken love for old Kurosawa films. He’s going to have a lot of fun with this one.

    2. The two-film deal with Fox Filmed Entertainment will allow him to give us something really special and unique after The Wolverine. The deal is for two films, one with Fox and one with Searchlight, and it’s pretty much guaranteed funding for something that he may not have been able to get the money for. Maybe his Noah’s Ark project? That’s what I really want to see.

    So, he has sold out to an extent. But he sold out so he can continue making the movies we all love him for.

  15. bryan says:

    Aronofsky was attached to the Robocop remake, Batman: Year One, and Superman. Signing on to direct Wolverine doesn’t make you a sellout. David Fincher is not a sellout, either. Alien 3 scarred Fincher deeply, and shook what little confidence he had left in big-budget filmmaking. You cite Panic Room as an example of SELLING OUT? If anything, I’d consider BENJAMIN BUTTON a bigger sell out, just because he was pandering to the Academy, instead of making them adapt to him (The Social Network).

    Is Terry Gilliam a sell out? What about Joel and Ethan Coen?

    There used to be a time when ROBERT DENIRO wouldn’t appear on a multiplex screen that shared proximity with Billy Crystal or Ben Stiller. If you want to bemoan people selling out, I’d recommend starting with actors. Michael Caine admits Jaws: The Revenge (which he’s never seen) is, by all accounts, horrible – but the house that it paid for is quite lovely. Get the point?

  16. cuntman says:

    I own all Korine’s films, and they are great and unique, but lets face it. He couldn’t made a commercial film even if he tried. At least Aronofsky will bring some ‘art’ (I hope!) to the genre. I feel like most superhero films are primarily made for selling toys, just look at the Captain America photos which are emerging.

  17. Truthteller says:

    You come across as quite a pretentious douche just by labeling people as “sell outs”. All forms of art are subjective. Get over yourself.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon