Directors who put Style over Substance.

[Popcorn_Bliss]

The hard part about this is that, in filmmaking, style can equate to substance. In other words, being a visual medium, the emphasis is often on colors, tone, atmosphere, images, scenery, cinematography.

While I wouldn't go so far to say that plot is unimportant in film, I do personally think it is a secondary factor. With a book, it is everything. But with films, style indeed is the thing most blatantly on display.

In a perfect world, a great story will tie in with a stylistic picture and you will have an all-time type of film. But for me the look of a film or the look of an actress (or both) are the most primary things in movies. That may sound a bit shallow but, as mentioned, we are dealing with a visual medium. I will always choose a stylistic or alluring film with a "weak or nonsensical" plot over a great story with mundane cinematography or characters.

If being honest, most favorite directors will favor style or substance. Or, rather, style is their substance - Kubrick, Lynch, Lean, etc. I'm not saying their films don't contain great "stories", just that the imagery, pace, mood or characters is what really stands out.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

I don't get this, Darjeeling was genuinely touching, Rushmore told a story with real progression

All of his movies that I've seen (not seen Bottle Rocket, Life Aquatic and Tenenbaums) click on a superficial level for me, honestly. They're enjoyable but do nothing for me on any substantive level. Which is fine, it's not a criticism, just an observation that I know puts me in a minority. The only one of his movies that doesn't really do anything for me is Moonrise Kingdom.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Popcorn Bliss

The hard part about this is that, in filmmaking, style can equate to substance. In other words, being a visual medium, the emphasis is often on colors, tone, atmosphere, images, scenery, cinematography.

While I wouldn't go so far to say that plot is unimportant in film, I do personally think it is a secondary factor. With a book, it is everything. But with films, style indeed is the thing most blatantly on display.

In a perfect world, a great story will tie in with a stylistic picture and you will have an all-time type of film. But for me the look of a film or the look of an actress (or both) are the most primary things in movies. That may sound a bit shallow but, as mentioned, we are dealing with a visual medium. I will always choose a stylistic or alluring film with a "weak or nonsensical" plot over a great story with mundane cinematography or characters.

If being honest, most favorite directors will favor style or substance. Or, rather, style is their substance - Kubrick, Lynch, Lean, etc. I'm not saying their films don't contain great "stories", just that the imagery, pace, mood or characters is what really stands out.

Well stated. I believe they're both important, but style is valuable, I agree.

Originally Posted by Underworld54

Zack Snyder is the king of doing this.

John Woo has tons of style in his martial arts/gun films.

Paul WS Anderson of Resident Evil, Deathrace, Mortal Kombat, etc.

[lesco]

I've read all the replies and there is only one true leader in this field - BAZ LURHMANN. Except in his case, it's not "style over substance", it's "style over intelligence". If you saw his ridiculous Australia, you don't need any further persuading.

[Buscemi]

Rian Johnson. All he does is steal from older movies, put filters through the images, and the critics eat it up.

His films are more design school projects than something you'd pay $9 to watch.

[Ultra_Violence]

All the directors getting tarnished with the "All their films have no substance only style" brush, have been putting out thought provoking work for years even decades now. If you don't like they way they tell their stories, don't watch it's as simple as that. Nearly every director at one point in their career has been accused of this, simply because people don't "get" said film(s). It's not the directors fault.

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by Ultra_Violence

All the directors getting tarnished with the "All their films have no substance only style" brush, have been putting out thought provoking work for years even decades now. If you don't like they way they tell their stories, don't watch it's as simple as that. Nearly every director at one point in their career has been accused of this, simply because people don't "get" said film(s). It's not the directors fault.

I don't think everyone says it in a bad way. I love Refn's work but he is definitely a style over substance director.

The term people throw around too much for directors they don't get is "pretentious".

[MifuneFan]

Guy Ritchie

[warrian]

Originally Posted by lesco

I've read all the replies and there is only one true leader in this field - BAZ LURHMANN. Except in his case, it's not "style over substance", it's "style over intelligence". If you saw his ridiculous Australia, you don't need any further persuading.

Yeah, Baz the spaz. And Australia... spends two hundred million dollars asking the question: "How many kangaroo fart jokes would it take to ruin Gone with the Wind."

The answer was "one" spaz. Just the one.

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by John Klein

The term people throw around too much for directors they don't get is "pretentious".

Some of the anti-intellectualism gathering steam of late is worrying. Anything that requires thought and effort is labelled as pretentious. I don't doubt there's some stuff out there that is genuinely pretentious, though.

[P-Rock]

David Lynch
Robert Rodriguez
Ryuhei Kitamura

[GLaDOS]

Zack Snyder: The Thread

[PipesDonatello]

Panos Cosmatos, director of Beyond The Black Rainbow. Granted he's only made one movie but I doubt his second film, if he ever makes one, will have much substance either. Its a shame he hasn't made anything else because Beyond The Black Rainbow is an amazing movie to look at.

[Ultra_Violence]

Originally Posted by John Klein

I don't think everyone says it in a bad way. I love Refn's work but he is definitely a style over substance director.

The term people throw around too much for directors they don't get is "pretentious".

I can't comment on Neon Demon but everything he has done so far has been hugely stylish whilst also retaining substance but maybe that's just me. Only God Forgives is more than just pretty colours to me.

Well yes there's that too. Pretentious overload when one can't understand a particular directors film (s).

[aiman04]

Zack Snyder. This should be in every reply in this thread.

[trans8010]

Zack Snyder if he would grow up, out of this juvenile "you just don't understand, I'm dark and edgy, and complex and nuanced and you just don't get me" attitude, could potentially be a very a well respected and acclaimed filmmaker. He's in his 40's and his work still resembles that of a film school grad. He refuses to evolve.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Ultra_Violence

All the directors getting tarnished with the "All their films have no substance only style" brush, have been putting out thought provoking work for years even decades now. If you don't like they way they tell their stories, don't watch it's as simple as that. Nearly every director at one point in their career has been accused of this, simply because people don't "get" said film(s). It's not the directors fault.

But there's nothing inherently wrong with being "all style, no subtance." Not every movie needs to be a full meal, junk food is perfectly fine sometimes.

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by Ultra_Violence

I can't comment on Neon Demon but everything he has done so far has been hugely stylish whilst also retaining substance but maybe that's just me. Only God Forgives is more than just pretty colours to me.

Well yes there's that too. Pretentious overload when one can't understand a particular directors film (s).

The issue with Refn for people is that his work requires a lot more outside knowledge and a watchful eye. He does not explain anything in his films and when he does, that is something you need to pick up with your eyes because he tells his stories visually. Refn is mainly lived by people who are interested in film, not by the general public.

I'm not in the group that calls Only God Forgives a trash pile, I'm actually glad I own it because it is a gorgeous ****ing film (I love neon lights). But I definitely won't argue with people who say it is a bit shallow in the story department. I could follow it because I know how Refn works but I needed to watch a critic discuss the film to fully get what happened it in. I didnt know why the karaoke scenes were suppose to be so important that we kept going back to them, that was something you needed outside knowledge to understand.

Ill fight someone who talks crap about Refn though. The man is a great director, his films aren't for everyone but the man is a master with his camera and colors (and he is partially color blind to boot).

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by John Klein

The issue with Refn for people is that his work requires a lot more outside knowledge and a watchful eye. He does not explain anything in his films and when he does, that is something you need to pick up with your eyes because he tells his stories visually. Refn is mainly lived by people who are interested in film, not by the general public.

I'm not in the group that calls Only God Forgives a trash pile, I'm actually glad I own it because it is a gorgeous ****ing film (I love neon lights). But I definitely won't argue with people who say it is a bit shallow in the story department. I could follow it because I know how Refn works but I needed to watch a critic discuss the film to fully get what happened it in. I didnt know why the karaoke scenes were suppose to be so important that we kept going back to them, that was something you needed outside knowledge to understand.

Ill fight someone who talks crap about Refn though. The man is a great director, his films aren't for everyone but the man is a master with his camera and colors (and he is partially color blind to boot).

Wait...people didn't like it because they couldn't understand it?

What was to understand?

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by Impossible

Wait...people didn't like it because they couldn't understand it?

What was to understand?

Tell me why people loved Drive while hated Only God Forgives.