Filmmakers : Wes Anderson or Darren Aronofsky?

[sixx]

Anderson directed Rushmore, Aronofsky haven't directed any fully accomplished movie. I guess I'm not hanging for Aronofsky's next movie, while next Anderson is at least welcome.

Aronofsky hasn't directed a fully accomplished movie? Because Black Swan wasn't nominated for Best Picture?

But other than the fact that they're both 43-years-old and their last names begin with "A", I'd be hard pressed to find any similarities between the two. In the end I'm going to go with Aronofsky since he jump started Clint Mansell's career.

[3dRevelation]

Out of the two I definitely have to go with Aronofsky. I find Anderson way too quirky for my taste. I did enjoy Rushmore, but his other two films I've seen (The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatic) I thought were ok but not what they are made out to be. Aronofsky actually has my highest rating out of directors I have seen 5 films from (he is tied with PT Anderson who I would probably rank over Aronofsky). Out of Aronofsky's 5 films I loved all of them except for Pi. That doesn't mean Anderson doesn't have talent, but I personally enjoy Aronofsky's films more. Probably because I don't enjoy Anderson's comedic approach (except for Rushmore and the gunfight scenes in The Life Aquatic) and I'd much rather watch Aronofsky's dramas. Shallow as the theme for Requiem is it has a great performance by Ellen Burstyn and I consider it well executed by Aronofsky. I felt Hugh Jackman gave a great performance in The Fountain (that didn't really get noticed because of how poorly the film was received, and it certainly seems like a love or hate kind of film in which I am in the former). Then came The Wrestler with some more great performances from Rourke and Tomei, and finally Natalie Portman in Black Swan.

I love Aronofsky because I am a big fan of dramas and his films tend to have some very good performances in them (Ellen Burstyn, Jackman, Rourke, Tomei, Portman). Anderson is kind of a dramatic director also, but I just don't enjoy the humor he infuses into them. While no one directly said as much, I don't understand the notion that Aronofsky isn't as talented as Anderson. Sure he is not as original as Anderson in writing, but he seems every bit as technically oriented as Anderson. I think Requiem and The Fountain are good examples. Aronofsky gets far less credit for The Fountain than he deserves as far as editing/special effects goes. There is actually a really short making of The Fountain explaining how they created such a beautiful film IMO without using a bunch of CGI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgkZHNpGKhY). I think even if you hated that film, you can at least say that it was well carried out. Enough of my rant.

Anderson directed Rushmore, Aronofsky haven't directed any fully accomplished movie. I guess I'm not hanging for Aronofsky's next movie, while next Anderson is at least welcome.

I'm not exactly sold on Noah yet either, but at least he seems to be assembling a decent cast. I don't love Russel Crowe, but I'm sure he will do at least a decent job with the role of Noah. I've heard both Jennifer Connelly and Julianne Moore rumored in the role of Noah's wife. Both actresses that I think are underrated. Emma Watson is also playing a love interest of one of Noah's sons (played by two actors I've never heard of), but I don't really know if she can act outside the Harry Potter series. I am however most excited about the fact that Ray Winstone is rumored for the villain role. I've only seen 2 of his films (The Departed and The Proposition), but based on those 2 films I think he could nail that role. I don't know much about the story of Noah but the brief synopsis I learned in catechism a while back, so I'm not really sure what will go on with the story, but I have faith in Aronofsky that it will be good. Hell if he delivers a taut drama with a great performance or two (again I'm thinking Winstone as the villain), I think I'll like it.

Edit:

In the end I'm going to go with Aronofsky since he jump started Clint Mansell's career.

This

[nauru]

Well...

Aronofsky has made several films that I enjoyed, except Pi (which was horrible IMO).
I've only seen two of Wes Anderson's films; one is Rushmore which I thought was bad, and the other is The Life Aquatic which received one of the lowest scores I've ever given on this site.

So I prefer Aronofsky.

[stuie299]

Well...

Aronofsky has made several films that I enjoyed, except Pi (which was horrible IMO).
I've only seen two of Wes Anderson's films; one is Rushmore which I thought was bad, and the other is The Life Aquatic which received one of the lowest scores I've ever given on this site.

So I prefer Aronofsky.

I just...I....I...you baffle me. I completely disagree with this statement and after looking at some of your mini reviews I am also in disagreement with many of them. What has me confused though is that we still have a decent amount of films with similar ratings. I mean I could except someone who was essentially my antithesis but with you I just never know what to expect.

[Anomaly1]

Weird comparison because they have almost nothing in common. This could be debated to death but personally I prefer Wes

Indie directors
Currently working
Same age
Last names begin with A

Yeah that's about it

Personally I would say Anderson too. Aronofsky's early work was too much style over substance (as others noted his films aren't particularly deep), but his more recent and more restrained works have been very good. Anderson started with a good grasp on everything and continues to make great films so overall I feel he's more consistent and would rank him higher on a list of directors. Would be more interesting to see where they both are in 15-20 years and what kinds of films they'll be making.

[KGB]

Out of curiosity, what is this trend of calling established Hollywood directors 'indie'? What defines them? Because except for one or two of their early films both of these directors have been working all of their carrears on multi-millon budgets.

If it's because they began their carrear making indie films before being spotted then that's just ridiculous because that is pretty much how the industry works nowadays.

[sixx]

Out of curiosity, what is this trend of calling established Hollywood directors 'indie'? What defines them? Because except for one or two of their early films both of these directors have been working all of their carrears on multi-millon budgets.

If it's because they began their carrear making indie films before being spotted then that's just ridiculous because that is pretty much how the industry works nowadays.

It just means they're funded through means that don't include a major movie studio.

[edkrak]

Out of curiosity, what is this trend of calling established Hollywood directors 'indie'? What defines them? Because except for one or two of their early films both of these directors have been working all of their carrears on multi-millon budgets.

If it's because they began their carrear making indie films before being spotted then that's just ridiculous because that is pretty much how the industry works nowadays.

It just means they're funded through means that don't include a major movie studio.

Aren't Anderson's films produced by Fox & Disney?

[ayall]

Both Great Directors and Writers, but i'd give the upper hand to Aronofsky.

Wes Anderson has great ability in writing and directing movies, but he majorly lacks technical skills.

Aronofsky has a much more vivid imagination, and knows how to recreate in cinema. (seen largely in the fountain where he 'over did it' and it backfired on him).

Wes does a great job of putting together a screen play, but it doesn't seem like he pays enough attention to technical details.

I think Aronofsky knows exactly what he wants, and that's why he's able to produce great performances from his crew (Rourke in the Wrestler is a great example of this).

[Spunkie]

Anderson directed Rushmore, Aronofsky haven't directed any fully accomplished movie. I guess I'm not hanging for Aronofsky's next movie, while next Anderson is at least welcome.

Aronofsky hasn't directed a fully accomplished movie? Because Black Swan wasn't nominated for Best Picture?

Ah so it's about the awards game? This is how I see Black Swan: "The final destination Black Swan sets for itself is it's own trapping. Aronofsky is at the prime of his craft, yet the rarely seen quality of craftsmanship doesn't do more than bluring the line into a smudge. Representations of becoming/discovery of gender are led astray with childishly designed thriller sequences."