Are directors always distinctive? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

While this sounds right, can it be guaranteed that EVERY director oversees all of this on EVERY film? I'd doubt that, and there have probably been hired hack type of directors who aren't that personally involved in a project, compared to someone with a real vision of his own. I've heard interviews with directors where the score was written and performed totally without their involvement. Of course, they might have had final approval..

I interviewed director Ted Post and we discussed at length his involvement with BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES (it's not CASABLANCA, I know...) and while he was very keen on wanting to actually "say" something about the decline of man in the story, he often talked about how the editor made choices that never worked. There were closeup crowd shots of ape extras in obviously inferior pull-over masks, for example, when they should have been used only in longshots -and Mr. Post semed very disappointed, and said the editor was good but "not right for this type of picture". He also went on about how the first half dragged too much instead of advancing the story - as though someone else was running this show!

This is only one personal example. But I'm sure there are others out there. I think the auteur theory is right much of the time, just not always.

 

[David Ren]

No, in fact, many directors don't do any of this. That's why good movies are so rare.

Every piece of art has a singular vision. That's why there's only one author for every novel. One painter for every painting. Otherwise, the cinematographer would have his own vision of the movie in his head. The composer is composing his own movie. The actors are acting in another movie. The editor is editing another kind of movie. The result would be a mess. It's as if 5 painters were painting on a single canvas without telling each other what it is they're painting.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Yep.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Some novels have two authors.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Well sometimes—and sometimes not. To cite only two examples where cinematographers had enormous influence on the finished movie, Haskell Wexler is usually given credit for teaching Mike Nichols how to make a movie in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and even as brilliant as Orson Welles was (and as much of an auteur), Greg Toland was probably more responsible for much of the cinematic brilliance in Citizen Kane than was Welles.

 

[Jan H]

Good point, Lew. DP's like James Wong Howe, Freddy Young, and Vittorio Storaro have reputations almost as distinguished as the directors they worked for.

 

[Lew Crippen]

A quick review of the films on which David Klein was DP would not lead anyone to believe that he is a particularly inspired filmmaker. Perhaps you would have a different view if Kevin Smith had chosen a different (and better) DP.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I don't think style is the only way a director can be distinctive. Kevin Smith is very distinctive because of his screenplays. The style or look to a Smith film might not be there but I then think of Woody Allen. You can tell an Allen film by the dialogue, which is very distinctive but the style really isn't there.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Michael, try watching Cries and Whispers and Crimes and Misdemeanors back to back and conclude that Allen’s films have no (visual) style. Of course this is just I.

I also think that it would be hard to watch Manhattan and reach a similar conclusion.

This does not necessarily mean that his visual style is consistent from one film to another, or that it was very good in his early films. For me, the visual interest in his films is an order of magnitude greater than Kevin Smith’s.

 

[MarcusUdeh]

I believe filmmaking in its strongest form is the marriage between a visual style and the instincts of great story telling. You need both to be awesome.

 

[Haggai]

Of course, those two movies also have the same cinematographer.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Woody is my favorite director but I've never really looked at his films for any style. That's not to say that have no style whatsoever but I certainly wouldn't mix his "style" with other stylish directors like Scorsese, Kubrick or DePalma. I watched a documentary called Woody Allen: A Life in Films (or something like that) and Woody seems to think most of his films are horrid but he also admits that people are connected to them for his style of writing. I think his character and the writing is what gives them their style more than the cinematography.

SHADOWS AND FOG certainly went for a more stylish, noir like feel but I think the film failed because of the poor screenplay and characters. INTERIORS is another film that had a style. The two films you mentioned as well.

However, I really don't see this style in something like BANANAS, EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW, LOVE AND DEATH or various other early films.

 

[teapot2001]

Woody doesn't have a visual style that he carries across most of his movies, but I wouldn't compare him with Kevin Smith whose movies have been visually bland. I don't know how anyone can watch some of Woody's movies like Interiors, Manhattan, Zelig, Shadows and Fog, Stardust Memories, and Husbands and Wives, and not talk about their visual style.

~T

 

[David Ren]

Well Cries and Whispers is not an Allen film but I see where you're coming from.

David

 

[Lew Crippen]

No doubt. But the point was that if Smith had actually used a DP with solid skills and a personal vision, he might have actually made movies that were visually interesting. Unless of course he chose to ignore advice.

 

[Haggai]

Yes, of course. Allen wanted that look for his movie, so he worked with Nykvist (whom he'd also worked with before) to achieve it. It also makes the point that the cinematographer can sometimes have as much to do with the look of a film as the director. Allen wanted that same sort of visual style as some of Bergman's films, but he didn't hire some little-known DP on the cheap, he went out and specifically got Bergman's DP.

 

[Stevan Lay]

Though some more renown Cinematographer such as Christopher Doyle have more pulling power than one may think. In a Sight&Sound article, Last Life in the Universe director Pen-Ek Ratanaruang had to be educated on how to film certain scenes.

It maybe Pen-Ek Ratanaruang's portrait you see but it was Christopher Doyle's paintbrush that was used.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Well, look wise JERSEY GIRL was a big step up from CLERKS but...

I see nothing wrong with the look of Smith's films because they are good enough for the type of films he's making. Most people point to the dart throwing scene in CHASING AMY and say more could have been done here but why? We're listening to the two people talk and to me, we're getting a more natural feel without all the edits or the camera moving around. In ANNIE HALL for example, how many times does the camera just stand still while the people are talking? The style here isn't important because we're looking at the characters and listening to what they've got to say.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Here I must disagree. Elaborate camera moves are not necessary in order for filmmakers to achieve visual interest.

Exhibit number 1: Ozu—whose films mostly involve nothing but people talking and contain no (well almost no) camera movement at all. And are very rich visually.

I assume that you are only being arugmentative and that you can see the difference (visually) between Annie Hall and Chasing Amy.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Self fulfilling? Again, I'm just disagreeing with you.

Less can be more IMO. Smith had a budget and more style in a certain film but most consider it a bomb (outside the Smith die-hards).