It's Been Done Before!

As human beings, it seems that we can never truly be happy with what we have. The American culture is a particular culprit of this constant dissatisfaction. It is woven into our social fabric: there is always something better, something higher to reach for; a greater risk to take and a greater reward to earn. It is fundamental to the American mentality, dating back to the rugged individualism of our ancestors who were in constant pursuit of the American dream.

This consistent unhappiness with the status quo is evident even in our criticism of film, especially regarding those directors considered to be auteurs. The refrain among critics regarding these filmmakers is the same: we've seen it before. It's not new, therefore it's not interesting. It's been done.

This criticism is consistently directed at the filmography of Wes Anderson, director of such indie favorites as Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums. Every movie seems to have the same stylistic touch, the same stilted dialogue, the same whimsical humor, the same Bill Murray appearance, the same visual linearity, the same slow motion shot. 

The same goes for Quentin Tarantino (as is evidenced by this indieWIRE article). He has the same central themes, the same stylized violence, the same heightened revenge story, the same exuberant pop culture references. Style and subject matter are fundamentally so similar as to become repetitive, and this boring. At least, this is what some critics express.

According to this reasoning, there is nothing innately wrong with what Anderson, Tarantino, and others like them are producing. The steadiness of their output and the similar threads running through all of their work seem to point to a stubbornness, resistance to change, and a lamentable lack of radical artistic innovation (at least according to critics). 

Clearly, though, it is our expectations which are at fault, not the directors themselves.

A director's style should develop and mature, certainly. But directors like Anderson and Tarantino seem to have found, and settled, their particular brand of filmmaking. It is unfortunate that this results in accusations of 'stagnancy' and 'monotony,' because in reality this is an incredible artistic achievement. These auteurs appear to have settled in and become so comfortable with both their aesthetic and artistic process that radical change simply isn't necessary.  

These directors are the confident adults of the film world. They have no need to travel through the tumultuous process of finding their identity, instead inhabiting a world of artistic maturity. Auteurs like Tarantino have settled into themselves, and have no need for creative experimentation because they know exactly how to express their artistic selfhood. This is clear when one considers that every aspect of both Anderson and Tarantino's films seem to demonstrate that director's influence. This alone is a monumental accomplishment, considering that the overwhelmingly collaborative nature of filmmaking in the first place.

This deserves appreciation and encouragement, not denunciation. But film critics are paid to criticize, and nothing inspires more controversy and rage than calling Tarantino boring.