Originally Posted by Murmer99
yeah not all of them are like that, and it's arguable that he at least made his films more entertaining. That's from my perspective of course, as I'm easily more fascinated by De Palma as a whole, but I have a lot of respect for both regardless. Like Godard said, "It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to." and I agree to an extent. I think it's generally difficult for an artist to avoid entirely illustrating the influence of preceding artists. But it's definitely important to not worry about such comparisons and try to stay as honest to your ideas as possible. Woody Allen is obviously an adequate example of someone who perhaps relies heavily on the directors that influenced him. He has however surprised me at times... and I would consider myself a pretty big fan. I see what you're saying though... if it reminds you too much of something else at times, it probably makes more sense to just watch whatever it resembles instead.
I'd say Godard's point is far more applicable to Woody Allen. The interesting point for me isn't that a film like Stardust Memories was so heavily influenced by Bergman but that Allen was inventive enough to translate that influence into comedy. That's my problem with a film like Dressed to Kill. It takes the Hitchcock/Argento thing but only in order to make the exact kind of film we've already seen them do numerous times. Although I wouldn't want to sound like I think there's any kind of absolutes in terms of the 'right' or a 'wrong' way to use influences. There are plenty of films I love that'd contradict any such 'rule' (Body Double being an obvious one).