Woody Allen & Wes Anderson

Movies are a synergy of multiple art forms, and everyone of the pieces needs to be good for the movie to succeed. But in many cases, the splendor of a movie is achieved through one aspect of the movie – say the script or acting – while other components play secondary, supporting roles.

I tend to classify directors (and theirs films) into three groups. The screenplay driven (Woody Allen), acting driven (Martin Scorsese, Clint Eastwood) and editing driven (Stephen Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick). Every film needs a good story, period. When I say screenplay driven, I mean the precise layout of events and the dialogs. By editing driven I don't imply just the post-process of cutting the scenes but rather the whole presentation of the movie – environments, photography, pacing, sound, etc.

Naturally, this a crude definition that is easy to reject. Martin Scorsese created new milestones in editing and camera work. And Kubrick's films have some of the finest acting ever – Jack Nickelson in The Shining and Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove. Also where to put a movie like Shawshank Redemption or Being John Malkovich?

Yet the classification has some basis and usefulness to it. "Are you talking to me?" didn't become the most famous line in film history because of it profoundness but because of De Niro's acting. Shindler's List and Saving Private Ryan might have some killer acting but it's how Spielberg shot them – great pacing, lingering camera, silent moments - that made 'em classics.

An editing driven director – his specialty being far away from the screenplay – can, by picking scripts from different writers, create the most diverse body of work. Stanley Kubrick has every genre – drama, horror, war, sci-fi, comedy – in his repertoire. Where as the screenplay driven writer tends to write his own films and ends up with a narrow set.

Case in point, Woody Allen. His films are fantastic, but they are all just the same. That's mostly unavoidable, and the fact that he has been making these movies for four decades now is a testament to his genius.

Wes Anderson is also a screenplay driven filmmaker. But with one difference. He has a unique photography style and an uncanny talent for creating a musical montage through the soundtrack.

The two directors also have another thing in common, they suffer from what I like to call "The Curse of Resonance". They both just want to make fun movies with quirky and wonderful characters, and they have made a bunch of delightful films. But one of their movies, Annie Hall for Woody and Rushmore for Wes, went miles beyond that and resonated with the audience at a much deeper level.

And now, because of that, every movie they make is a tease. It's similar to their masterpiece but not as good. At the end of The Darjeeling Limited, I should have felt a cozy satisfaction. Instead, my only thought was, "it's good but not as good as Rushmore." The same feeling I am left with after every Woody Allen movie.

It's unfair on my part, but I can't help it. And I know a lot of people who feel this way. But the directors don't seem to care. And they don't make things easier for the audience by casting the same actors.

I wish, for just one film, they would break the mold. And for that, they have to reach out. If only Woody Allen would hand out his screenplay to an upcoming director, who could cast and direct it his way. Or Wes Anderson could pick up someone's novel/screenplay and give it his own interpretation. That would take things to a whole new level.

Just see what The Coen Borthers did to No Country For Old Men and Spike Lee did to 25th Hour. Phenomenal.