Making just one groundbreaking film is more important than a long successful career for directors.

I’m going to make my case by comparing two directors. First, let’s look at Spielberg. I would never deny that he is a great filmmaker. His career is long and his box office results speak for themselves. Fans love him. He will forever be considered one of the great. And I won’t argue against any of that. But I will say that he stuck to narrative filmmaking and played it pretty safe throughout his career. He polished an already successful format. Next, let’s look at Kubrick. Most of his films were met with mixed reviews when they premiered. He aimed to challenge audiences. He made films that didn’t rely on narrative story structure. He broke conventions. He aimed to push the envelope. Within this group, let’s include other directors such as Ridley Scott, David Lynch, Coppola, Lean, and Glazer to name a few. Directors that took huge risks rather than played it safe. My opinion boils down to this: I prefer directors that take huge risks rather than try to get a good batting average, and I think a directors’ peak film is more important than his or her consistency.