Do some directors 'fluke' good films?

When a director's bad film start outweigh their good ones, do you ever wonder if they just got lucky making their better films? Perhaps a stronger script or influential DoP etc.

I'm thinking of people like John Singleton, Farrely Bros, Shyamalan; they've had some great starts but then haven't really matched them.

__________________

Does Copolla count? Or James Cameron? Or almost anyone critically acclaimed?

You think Copolla fluked Apocalypse Now and The Godfather or just got sloppy?

It is not unusual at all for directors to run out of gas. In fact it is incredible if you think of all of the terrible movies acclaimed directors have made in their later years. Some recover and make a good one in the middle of the crap, but most don't. Once they go bad, they stay bad. Sometimes it partly has to do with changing taste, might be personal problems, might be long time collaborators no longer part of the team, all sorts of things.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Yeah, i'm not looking at like Ridley Scott or people like that. It's director's who have really strong debuts then never lived up to their initial promise.

I f you look at those particular directors you mention in the first post, I don't think John Singleton was really a big deal, more like a one hit wonder, like Dennis Hopper on Easy Rider, so maybe he was a fluke. The Farralley Brothers showed early promise, hit their stride with There's Something About Mary, then got progressively worse. To be honest, I never cared that much for Mary, they don't know how to stage slapstick, and they are more crude than funny. As they have gotten older, they ran out of tricks. I doubt they will make a comeback with that Stooges movie. They need to stretch and do something a little more ambitious, but they seem to be going the other way. Shyamalan is a peculiar case. As good as The Sixth Sense is, you can see where he could run into trouble in future films. He is very focused on a certain narrow style and he is a better writer than a director (at least on that film). He seems to be running out of stories. He needs some collaborators, get somebody to help him write those screenplays, and stop taking himself so damn seriously.

He tried that with his new trilogy, and if Devil is any indication, it isn't helping.
I respect those films (you don't hear me say that very often haha) but don't find them incredibly appealing, however I don't know if I would call them flukes. Needless to say everything after The Godfather II just was not worth anyone's time, even his short in New York Stories.

In this context, "luck" might relate to the script or subject matter more than anything. Some people are better at selecting material than others.

Of course, self-indulgence after success can also constitute a factor.

The first person I thought of was Richard Kelly. I don't much care for Donnie Darko, but it looks like that was the best he had in him. Sure, he could prove me wrong, but I don't expect it at this point. The man has no focus at all. All of his films are all over the place, cramming as many crazy sci-fi/fantastical elements into them as he can.

__________________

All I have to say is YES they do.

__________________

Thinking about it, the original post asked did they get lucky, and I would say none of the directors mentioned made their best known movie by pure chance because they all wrote or co-wrote it so the script just didn't fall into their lap as an assignment, so it is more accurate to say they just had one good movie in them, which isn't the same thing.

I think some directors peak early rather than progress, and guys like M. Night and Richard Kelly are good examples of that. Sometimes I think when somebody debuts or is in the early stages of their career, they have that hunger and desire to just make the best film they possibly can, especially personal stories.

It's also important to note than certain eras can have an influence on the type of film's a director makes. The 70's for example was when these creative artists really got their **** together.

Guys like DePalma and Coppola would be influenced by the changes of society, finance and culture and attitudes as well other directors of an even earlier period. Some just can't adapt to the current era and thus make less personal and less interesting films so perhaps that has somthing to do with it too.

I don't agree with this at all. Guy Maddin makes timeless films but it looks like he came out of the 40s at times. It doesn't matter what decade it is, a truly creative person knows how to appeal to someone; that amount of fan-dome may fluctuate but that's the lifestyle. Also as a viewer it's our job to interpret the meaning of the film despite what year it is, and if the creator fails to make something relatively unique and turns out 20 meandering films for the rest of his career, that's completely his fault. Coppola has no excuses, nor does any likened artist.

A better question might be "Are there bad directors who get lucky and make a good film or two?" I don't think anyone mentioned so far is a bad director. They just don't always nail it; Maybe they take too many risks or not enough.

Personally, I like Shyamalan's work overall and enjoyed The Village, Signs and Unbreakable, though The Happening stunk pretty bad, and there's no denying Sixth Sense was his best film.

I also like those silly, cheerfully vulgar Farrely Bros movies. I'm not always in the mood for one but when I am, I enjoy them.

Kelly's films are ambitious messes that work to varying degrees: Darko worked best, Southland was a gaudy fiasco with sparks of brilliance, and The Box was his most mainstream project. I'm reserving judgment.

Coppola is not a bad director. Period.

Back to my question, though: Yes, I think bad directors can get lucky. Uwe Boll is the epitome of exploitative schlockmeisters, but Rampage was a thoroughly gripping thriller.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Some talented directors just can't connect with changing times. D.W. Griffith with his Dicksinian sentimentality was out-of-step with the twenties and the Jazz Era. The great Billy Wilder made big time stinkeroos at his last two times at bat that prevented him from directing another movie even though he wanted to two decades before he died. Woody Allen keeps spitting them out, but for the last decade cranks out tired old man movies that say nothing new and is no longer amusing saying nothing.

Guy Maddin is overrated.

There bloody well is. Unbreakable's his best film.

Honeykid, you're not disagreeing with me, are you? You know I'll cry if you do.

It may seem like its the times that separate their popularity, but when a director/writer doesn't adapt of develop any of his ideas for a given amount of time, it's not the time period he can't grasp, it's that he isn't progressing as a writer. Some people just don't try different things, or they try different things without the passion and this is where it leads them; nowhere.

Yeah but then you have to ask yourself why they are not progressing. Why is such and such director making such weak films these days when at one point they were considered elite artists? Eras can and do have an affect on a state of mind. Look at all the noirs of the 40's and 50's. The moody tone and stylish look reflected the depression era all that. Imagine those directors working today. I'm not saying every falling director is a result of being out of touch with the future, but I don't think that there is any denying that it can be a factor.

For the record, I think that M. Night falls into your category of a guy who just hasn't progressed and peaked early. He is still pretty young by director standards but he isn't challenging himself beyond high concept thrillers