What is your directing style?

[Popcorn_Bliss]

Assuming you were a director? Or perhaps you are?

I'm always fascinated by how many great directors there are yet how differently they sometimes go about making films.

A director like William Friedkin came from the school of Hitchcock (literally) and yet they made legendary films quite differently. Hitchcock was controlled and precise. He once said that creating the idea and plot of the film was the "art". Actually making the film was his least favorite part. Yet he was obsessed with every glance, every angle, and every detail.

Friedkin was much more a "free-lance director". He didn't believe in rehearsing a cast and even casted most of his films right on the spot! He sought realism and spontaneity by and large.

What the two directors shared was the talent for making the film in their mind before the cameras even rolled. Friedkin in fact has stated that every film he has made has never fully lived up to how good it was in his head. He said his only goal was to make a film as close to his vision as possible but that perfection is filming is always a mirage.

I've always seen myself as being closer to the deliberate, carefully-framed style of filmmaking. I wouldn't be the best action or documentary style filmmaker because I'm not a fan of quick-cuts in general nor in spontaneity to be honest. I think of great film as something much more akin to what Hitchcock or Fellini did - using the frame and characters to relay mood, symbolism, sensualness, detail, choreography, etc.

Of course, the film can dictate the style used, but my point is that I would only do films where I felt I could make them to my style. Who wants to see a dreamer or surrealist trying to make an action film?

What is your directing style? What directors would be your benchmarks?

[dallywhitty]

I imagine my directorial style would be the love child of Lynch and Kubrick.

[BladeRunner2007]

I guess it would be very similar to the style of my favorite director? So, in that case it would be like John Carpenter's.

[imsounoriginal]

I've always liked the Woody Allen style, where entire scenes or conversations happen with none or very few cuts, but it's never gimmicky or calls attention to itself.

On the other hand, Scorsese and Greengrass know how to get my blood pumping like few other directors.

[kemcha]

Personally, while I would want to work with a script, I'd rather have actors who improvised with their lines. One of the best things I enjoyed about Back to School, was that Rodney Dangerfield did a lot of improvisation with his lines. I seem to recall that during those scenes where he was in his bathrobe, he often took liberty with his lines and that the director, I think, felt that his performance with the new lines of dialogue worked well for those scenes. Additionally, those scenes with the bathrobe, from the way I remember it, Rodney didn't like wearing clothes, which was why he was wearing the bathrobe.

I just like those kind of actors who breath new life into the film by acting unconventional. Depending on actor, it can really work for certain films.

[tob]

My style would be of Tony Scott.

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I've always liked the Woody Allen style, where entire scenes or conversations happen with none or very few cuts, but it's never gimmicky or calls attention to itself.

With a couple of exceptions, I tend to find the best directors are the ones who usually follow this philosophy. Cut when motivated, not just because Hollywood tradition suggests you should.

[Popcorn_Bliss]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

With a couple of exceptions, I tend to find the best directors are the ones who usually follow this philosophy. Cut when motivated, not just because Hollywood tradition suggests you should.

Well said. I definitely belong to the "less cutting is better / more immersive" school of thought. If there is a school for that?

[Eagles612]

Orson Welles. His shot selection and style seem to help tell the story. Citizen Kane is a huge obvious one when it comes to that. Kubrick and Lynch are 2 others that came to mind first, but someone beat me to them.

[NegaScott128]

Somewhere between Edgar Wright and PT Anderson, post-TWBB. But not as good.

[cynatnite]

I think I'd most like to be Scorsese. I love his style a lot. His use of music, use of long tracking shots and how he doesn't hold back when it comes to the use of violence. It unnerves me sometimes, but it's compelling.

Casino is my favorite of his and I love how he tells that story.

[ArrestedDevelopment]

If I was a director I would ape David Fincher's style. Everything he shoots looks so cold yet sleek and calculated.

[The Debts]

Probably somewhere along the lines of Ridley Scott and/or Clint Eastwood. Highly technical and stylistic but keeping the performances reserved while the material grounded, even if it dipped into the realm of fantasy.

[Ray Jackson]

[Hucksta G]

I imagine I'd be quite lazy and probably have a bit of a Kevin Smith style about me.

[dommie]

I tend to like substance over style but a good director finds a way to tell a fascinating story by letting his style enhance that story without overwhelming it. Too many of today's directors are more interested in their style and filling up the screen with it but don't know how to tell a captivating story.

I really like the style of the classic directors who were master story tellers but had a distinctive style that didn't overwhelm the basic story they were telling. Directors like John Ford, Howard Hawks, and Michael Curtiz, and of course Hitchcock, are the ones that come to mind when noting my favorites.

As for modern style, I lean towards Christopher Nolan, David Fincher, and Scorcese. They all have a distinctive style and know how to use it to tell a captivating story without overwhelming it.

For sheer audacity, I have to mention Mel Gibson. Say what you will about Gibson, but you can't ignore what he puts up on the screen.

[Al_The_Strange]

I do video tape stuff in my free time--usually just places, nature scenes, travels, set with music and stuff. It is all very amateurish, but over the years I took some inspiration from Ron Fricke and Godfrey Reggio, slowing things down, taking my time, doing more inventive time-lapses, more interesting editing, adding music...I guess I'm trying to turn my videos into meditative experiences. I'm quite proud of my last few years' worth.

Not sure if I could direct people that effectively though to carry a story and narrative correctly and with gravitas. Not sure if I could ever get a grand award-winning performance out of anybody. I am confident I could write a script with a cool story and lots of action, and I would love to stage setpieces and the camera movements in inventive ways (but without being all hyperactive about it). I appreciate films that are both spontaneous and planned--I'd probably storyboard and plan a lot, but keep an open mind for improv and spontaneous opportunities, especially while filming at a location or something.

So, if I could break into Hollywood and become a director, I think my style would be like...the Watchowskis, maybe? I'd definitely look up to them as an influence.

Originally Posted by headphones

In a traditional Hollywood movie, directors play by a different set of rules. Less show, a lot more business. The writer is not involved in the filming, casting, ect. And the producers are calling all of the shots. And since they're the ones funding the film, you have to work within those means. But pretty much 99.9% of big directors, are also producers, with their own production companies, so in those cases, they have a lot of say. However you run into another brick wall, when that big A-List star you get to be in the movie, also has a production company, and therefore, they have a say in how the movie should be made. And on top of all that, you have the studio breathing down your neck every 30 seconds, telling you how things should be done.

Ah, yes, this is what scares me about Hollywood and why you'll probably never catch me in the director's chair. Thanks for the reality check.

[MifuneFan]

Scorsese meets Uwe Bol. I call it Bol-sese

[dommie]

Originally Posted by headphones

In a traditional Hollywood movie, directors play by a different set of rules. Less show, a lot more business. The writer is not involved in the filming, casting, ect. And the producers are calling all of the shots. And since they're the ones funding the film, you have to work within those means. But pretty much 99.9% of big directors, are also producers, with their own production companies, so in those cases, they have a lot of say. However you run into another brick wall, when that big A-List star you get to be in the movie, also has a production company, and therefore, they have a say in how the movie should be made. And on top of all that, you have the studio breathing down your neck every 30 seconds, telling you how things should be done.

So true in today's Hollywood. That is why I tend to gravitate to the films of directors like John Ford, Howard Hawks, and Michael Curtiz. It was different then. Even though they were working with big stars like John Wayne, James Cagney, and Humphrey Bogart, they still controlled their films and their word was generally the final one. They were also working for studios that were controlled largely by filmmakers and not MBA graduates and lawyers like today's studios. Those filmmakers hired their directors for what they brought to the screen and knew enough when to leave them alone. Today's studio heads are tinkerers. That is why you have so many directors forming their own production companies with the studios relegated in many ways to simply being the distributor of the product and not the creator.

[Rich65]

I would like my style to be like Robert Wise. The man excelled at any genre he made a film in. The only thing I don't think he made was a screwball comedy and in that case my style would Howard Hawks.