Darren Aronofsky - One of the modern greats

He's an ambitious filmmaker, but he does try a little too hard in a way that sometimes feels contrived a bit. Although I personally think Noah is his best film since Requiem for a Dream. But that's overlooking at least three mediocre films in between.

Whereas PT Anderson has had very few duds and has made at least one masterpiece. Aronofsky may just have a great film in him and Noah was the best writing he's done in a long time. I'll be interested to see what he does next. I think the low-budget work on Black Swan and The Wrestler where he concentrated on character and performance more has definitely benefited him tremendously.

I didn't mean it as a comparsion, it's just disappointing to see no/too less tributes in here for a film-maker of this magnitude and talent.

And it's going to be subjective, but as what you call three mediocre films, none of the three are anywhere near mediocre in the ilk of Punch Drunk Love/Hard Eight in terms of comparing filmographies. Even the most regarded of PTA's work have been brilliant in terms of technical film-making - granted, but don't appeal to me as movies with soul (something that Aronofsky's works have in abundance), sometimes lacking of a proper character arc and sometimes end up with nothing to say. I don't want to make this a comparison thread or anything, so I'll stop here on this.

For me, The Fountain is one of the greatest modern works of art and there's nothing mediocre about it. A shade more ambitious and rewarding than Requiem for a Dream. The Wrestler is powerful as well. Black Swan is probably the most toned down work of Aronofsky and that's probably why it appealed to a larger audience. It's anything but a dud.

It also seems you've conveniently skipped Pi, which's as much as an indie master-piece could ever be.

Have you made a tribute? Perhaps that's the answer! lol. For some reason he doesn't motivate the same fan base.

That's your opinion, but I think many would favor Punch Drunk Love over The Fountain. Personally, The Wrestler and Black Swan were enjoyable enough for one viewing. I like the intent of the Fountain, as well as the soundtrack, and the organic special effects did seem to influence Malick's superior The Tree of Life and that film's creation sequence.

How did I skip Pi? That came before Requiem for a Dream... so... what's your point there? Between Requiem for a Dream and Noah, he made ambitious films that developed himself as a filmmaker, but I don't think that necessarily makes them great movies.

Have you made a tribute? Perhaps that's the answer! lol.

Well, isn't this a start.

For some reason he doesn't motivate the same fan base.

Or rather, this message board is full of trolls and his fanbase don't see the point in feeding them. I refrained from posting here as well for possibly the same reason why many of those who have acquired to appreciate his movies haven't brought it up. There are many who appreciate his movies in his respective movie boards though.

That's your opinion, but I think many would favor Punch Drunk Love over The Fountain.

Easy. Punch Drunk Love is simpler and more accessible. Popularity is not equal to quality.

I don't believe in a consensus. The majority in any particular topic/category/aspect = plain average. Of course, I would have a natural opinion on a different topic coinciding with the majority. Everyone would for different random topics. But why should anyone consciously require to side with an average opinion. One could be better or worse for it! Backing up with points and standing out is better than being sheep.

How did I skip Pi? That came before Requiem for a Dream... so... what's your point there?

Is 'if it came before Requiem for a dream, it should not be brought up' your point? It straight away wipes out the theory that PTA has atleast a masterpiece and hence he has to be better. Pi is as good as any indie masterpiece.

Between Requiem for a Dream and Noah, he made ambitious films that developed himself as a filmmaker, but I don't think that necessarily makes them great movies.

How is that anything more than your opinion. As you rightfully pointed out above as that was my opinion?

For me, all three movies between Requiem for a dream and Noah are great works of art, with the The Fountain being the best of the 6 that he's made. Different people who liked his entire filmography have argued for each of his films being the best of the lot, that says a lot about how they're all worthy of being up there. He's a visionary (one example which you've mentioned about influencing The Tree Of Life). Also in a sense that movies like Pi and The Fountain have a greater reception now than at the time of their respective releases. I expect a similar trend for Noah as well. The conclusion would be that he's well ahead of his time, which makes the case for the better. It should be a long long time for the majority to catch up with him/might not even happen.

I did not start this thread to argue with those who don't agree or appreciate him as much. I felt I wanted to bring out those who critique constructively (enjoyed reading a lot of reviews) and appreciate his movies at the same time from the message boards of all his movies to a common point. It seems I was wrong and this is a troll house (not even referring to you) where one cannot have a meaningful discussion.

Easy. Punch Drunk Love is simpler and more accessible. Popularity is not equal to quality. I don't believe in a consensus.

This is a classic example of a straw man argument. I don't think you're necessarily intending to be doing so, but you have. I'm not sure how you connect one person, me, preferring what's considered a weaker entry in PT Anderson's filmography to Aronofsky's weakest film. I enjoy aspects of The Fountain, mostly the score and SFX, but the story was flawed. Whatever this sheep like mentality you're speaking of is irrelevant and unsubstantiated.

Is 'if it came before Requiem for a dream, it should not be brought up' your point?

Again, a nonsense argument - if I can even call it an argument. My statement was not to rank his films, but in response to YOUR comparison of PTA's filmography with Aronofsky. Which, as I said, PTA's weaker films hold up better than Aronofsky. PTA is a stronger storyteller, whereas Aronofsky's strengths is in tone and scope.

You want me to bring up Pi? Sure. As far as low-budget debut films, Badlands and Following, amongst dozens other debuts, are better than Pi. Pi had a great ambition, though, that's hard to be ignored and is influential to low-budget filmmakers.

How is that anything more than your opinion.

I never said it was anything more than my opinion, and I don't take anything you say as more than your opinion. That's just rather obvious about any discussions of art. After all, critics and audiences have rallied behind films before that a few years later they reject (see: Crash). Time is the best objectifier.

So far, he's an ambitious filmmaker that has intelligent ideas (survivor's guilt and Noah, mathematics and God, etc.), but hasn't yet translated them into a GREAT film - though, his graphic novels are pretty great. Some of his films have been good, others have been elevated by Clint Mansell's music (i.e. The Fountain) and/or separate screenwriters (Black Swan, The Wrestler). Aronofsky is only age 45, he'll make something deserving of greatness. Noah is a good step in that direction, pairing the authenticity of The Wrestler with the scope of The Fountain.

Mediocre??? Ha. The Wrestler was a masterwork. It was a perfect movie. Black Swan, although a little out there was a gorgeous film.

Yes, the Wrestler was a well-crafted movie that was competently written, directed and acted. That doesn't mean that it can't also be mediocre, using the definition "of only moderate quality." The Wrestler should be a baseline in terms of quality and audience expectations. Had they cast anyone other than Mickey Rourke as the main character, I don't know if anyone would have cared about the film. His performance elevated the movie. It's what happens when you cast the right actor for a role, versus casting who the studio thinks will make the most money.

I wouldn't put The Wrestler and Black Swan on the cinematic stature of 2001 and Citizens Kane, that's a hard feat. The Wrestler and Black Swan should be the standard studio quality film. The problem that when the studios are funding such terrible product (and I'll call them 'product' because they're not even films), anything that's remotely intelligently designed seems to be a "modern great" as the original post calls Aronofsky's films.

If Hollywood were like any other industry, you'd be shocked how they can spend $100 million and release something that's just bafflingly illogical or incomprehensible. It's like Samsung releasing a TV and there's no screen and you wonder who signed off on this thing.

I'm not denying Aronofsky might become a great, but I think that's too soon to call.

And to add to this, the general assumption is that film is not a product and you cannot tell when something will work or not. But when you spend $100 million on it... really? The problem is not that you can't tell, it's that you proceed with production because you need the sequel to be released by a certain date so you just force everything to happen without care of the end product.

Sometimes I wish Steve Jobs would have gone into the film studio business. I could imagine him not allowing some of the junk that gets branded by Warner Brothers or Universal get released. Be nice if you saw those names again and expected high quality as a standard.