Re: General Movie Discussion Part II
But that is just a perception of genres. In fact, styllistically all the Scorsese movies are pretty similar, he always use the same tricks, the difference is just because he portrays different eras of america, so the movies always has different ambients. But yes, i understand what you mean.
The problem is, i think many people go to the cinema looking for stories when this isn't necessary at all. The best example for this is Tarantino, there is a story in all his movies but is a secondary thing, because he knows that the majority of his thing is mostly fucking trivial. In the 90's this was accepted because a great portion of his fans was looking for the gangsters thing, the violence and the blood, when he stop that, the critics began
I don't understand why a director should be able to do different genres or things, you want diversity? great. But styles are suitted for very specific things and in one simple genre you're able to do differents themes even if the movies seems to fold between them. unless you are a monster and are suitted for everything (but this doesn't exist) of you're ambiciousand naive. In fact, the majority of the greatest director of all time are one dimensional in his style: Bresson, Ozu, Hitchcock, Griffith, etc.
Only one is a wanderer, two together are always going somewhere.