Are directors always distinctive?

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

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.

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

Perhaps, although if Steven Spielberg directed a movie using David Klein as DP, the movie would still be visually interesting. Ultimately, it's the director that guides the cinematographer.



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

David

I’m coming from Allen’s overall view of Ingmar Bergman’s Cries and Whispers, a film where he used red as a predominant color. Allen uses a different palette, but visually he is riffing on Bergman’s movie. He has also had scenes (in other movies) where he made (visual) puns on The Seventh Seal. You can search that out for yourself.
I assume that your grin means that we are sharing the same joke.
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.

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.

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.

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.

I’d say that is a self-fulfilling statement. If his films were more visually interesting, then his overall story would be better served. Since they are not, then his style is good enough for the kind of movie he is making. 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.

Being argumentative? Nope.
Disagreeing with you? Yep.

I'm not saying the Smith film isn't "bland" but Woody is still a far cry to being stylish in certain films.



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).

I thought it was Stanley Kubrick.
I mean, Martin Scorsese...

Indeed. And I made that point in post #29: . But certain films, is not all films and since you can discern no appreciable difference in the visual interest between Annie Hall and Chasing Amy (the two specific movies you mentioned), we do indeed disagree.

Perhaps Lew. I'm guessing you didn't care too much for CA? I probably should have mentioned that I feel it's one of the best films of the decade and to some extent, I think it plays fairly closely to a Woody Allen film in terms of its characters and dialogue. I'd rank CA in my top 10 of the decade but even if he had a better DP, I don't think I would have moved it higher. In fact, I think a better looking picture would have made me feel even less for it. I think the way it looks brings a rawness to it that couldn't have been replace by the greatest DP in the world.

I disagree COMPLETELY. Movies are a visual medium. If the dialogue were that important, they would print the screenplay up on the screen. You should be able to get something out of a good movie even if you turn the sound off completely.

I'm not suggesting Kevin Smith move the camera like Brian DePalma. In fact, I'm not suggesting he move his camera AT ALL (because good direction should serve the story and be invisible anyway) but Smith can't handle the simplest of dialogue scenes.

There are several scenes in Chasing Amy which shows his incompetence as a filmmaker, something they would teach in Filmmaking 101.

An example of that would be a scene about halfway through the movie where Holden and Amy have a back and forth conversation sitting in the front seats in a car. The camera is placed in the back seat and each actor is framed individually in a single shot with no edits. The camera whips back and forth between the two. When Amy speaks, the camera is pointed at her. As soon as she finishes, the camera pans over to Holden. Then when he finishes, the camera swings back to catch Amy's next line. This continues through the whole scene

The reason this does not work is because EVERY CAMERA MOVE SHOULD BE EXTERNALLY OR INTERNALLY GENERATED BY WHATEVER IS ON THE SCREEN THAT IS DRIVING THE STORY. In that scene, the camera cannot make an externally generated move because there is nothing moving in the frame to track with. And since the scene isn't an emotionally charged scene, the pan isn't internally generated.

When someone watches that scene from Chasing Amy, they are struck by the camera's psychic ability to always leave one actor when he finishes speaking and manage to get to the other actor just before he starts. The movements are not driven by the story but by someone in the backseat operating the camera (the cameraman). When they become aware of the cameraman, the illusion is broken because they realize, conciously or subconciously, what they're seeing is not real but a simulation of reality.

One of the few times where Smith actually moves his camera, he fails. The fact that the movie still works is a testament to his writing but would the movie have improved if it were shot better? ABSOLUTELY. Woody Allen would never have made a mistake like this, and if you don't see the difference between Annie Hall and Chasing Amy in terms of visual style, well... rewatch the two films. It's not about how much you move the camera or come up with weird angles to shot. It's how you use the visual medium of film to tell a story.

Spielberg moves his camera in almost every shot yet it's always internally or externally generated so it's invincible and never distracting like that Chasing Amy shot. Tarantino also a master of camera moves, using it as a tool to enhance the story, but never showing off (like Brian DePalma and M. Night Shyamalan sometimes does).

Like I said, since very shot is meant to serve the story, it is IMPOSSIBLE to let the cinematographer make decisions on shooting the movie because cinematographers do not understand the story (if they had storytelling skills, they'd be directors, who are paid better and sleep with better looking women). Well, not impossible, but if you want to be a truly great director, you shouldn't.

David

BTW, Annie Hall was shot by Gordon Willis, who shot a dozen other Allen movies (including Manhattan, which is, IMO, Allen's most beautiful film), all of the Godfather movies, All the President's Men, etc.

David Klein, besides working on Smith films, hasn't shot a single recognizable film. Hmmm, I wonder why. He must be really bad if no one is hiring him even after working on a few hit films (Clerks, Mallrats)

Jersey Girl was shot better (by legendary Vilmos Zsigmond) but Smith couldn't utilize Zsigmond's full potential (like DePalma did). Back to the painting analogies, Zsigmond is a better paintbrush but if the painter sucks, it won't help that much.

My theory on why Smith always backs out on writing assignments is because he's afraid once people find out how much better other directers are at directing his screenplays, he won't find another directing gig.

David

Thanks David—you saved me a lot of typing. I absolutely agree with the comment as to how Smith handles the camera in Chasing Amy—you are correct Michael—I don’t care much for that movie, though I do think that Kevin Smith has a good ear and writes some terrific dialogue for individual scenes—though he is less sure in putting everything together.

I don’t think the ‘visually interesting’ and ‘better looking’ is the same thing at all. There are plenty of films that are visually interesting (i.e. good cinematography) and raw (not good looking). Elephant, a film that I don’t particularly like (or agree with the cinematic choices) is visually very interesting, but not (for me) very good looking—and it is certainly raw). Gus Van Sant and Harris Savides get both the blame and credit here. To cite just one more recent movie, Morvern Callar, directed by Lynne Ramsay and with DP Alwin Kuchler is a movie where I find that the look of the film is the definition of raw and it perfectly complements the story’s existential downward spiral.

And it is worth mentioning that Willis was one of the proponents of keeping things simple—he thought that the audience should not notice the camera. The differences that he had with Francis Ford Coppola in filming The Godfather have been mentioned so many times that they hardly bear repeating.

Clearly both were master filmmakers, so who is really right is probably not the point: the finished movies speak for themselves.

It's strange but Woody Allen has said the same thing. However, it's quite clear Allen is a filmmaker who doesn't think highly of himself so...

Tim Burton

I always know a Tim Burton film, I just like his style.

I READ THIS WHOLE POST JUST TO SAY I CAN SPOT A TIM BURTON MOVIE, EVEN BIG FISH THAT WASN'T DARK LOOKING. I HAD THAT FEELING WHEN SEEING THE PREVIEWS FOR LEMONY SNICKETS AND HEARD THAT THE VISUAL GUY WORKED WITH TIM BURTON ON OTHER FILMS.

I think there's a danger in this thread that we're confusing 'bland' with 'bad' or 'easy'. I'm not sure this is right for two main reasons.

First, not implanting personal stylistic tics on a film but creating something that is at least competent, and if the script and acting are right, memorable, is a perfectly acceptable form of directing. Folks tend to castigate Mr Howard for being bland, but he's directed Apollo 13 and A Beautiful Mind, both excellent movies that any director should be proud of. The rest of his movies - Backdraft, Willow, Cocoon, etc are all at least watchable. Let's put it this way - how many people can you think of (other than outright film snobs who probably think Brakhage's work is too commercial) who hate Ron Howard films? They may not be all-time favourites, but they can't simply be dismissed as poor quality. This is because although there are no stylistic tics, individual scenes flow, the links between scenes don't jar, basic film-making techniques are used efficiently, and Howard in general is excellent at damping down the saccharin content.

Second, being bland does not automatically mean that a movie will be acceptable. Compare Ron Howard's output with someone bland and IMHO bad - Chris Columbus. Mrs Doubtfire, Stepmom, Bicentennial Man - all movies that are so dripping in saccharin sentiment that I want to vomit. Tired, tired cliches, acting that should have been reined in, direction straight out of Film School 101. If anyone doubts just how clunky CC's directing 'talents' are, just watch either of the first two Harry Potters and then watch the third - the leap in quality is jaw-dropping. Before anyone says that CC's films are amongst the best-selling of all time, there is the response that this doesn't indicate quality. The Power Rangers Movie made money - did that make it a good film? Rudolph Valentino movies made money - anyone care to watch one these days?

This I stress is my personal opinion, and no doubt your mileage will vary. However, the point I'm trying to make is that bland doesn't mean lacking in talent, and being an unobtrusive director can in theory be just as difficult and demanding as being an 'auteur'. I would also argue that the quality of the product of a 'bland' director can be just as good.

David Lynch, when he's doing a David Lynch movie, has his own distinctive style. What I find so great about him is that he can lay his trademark Lynch-mask aside and create movies like 'The Elephant Man' and 'The Straight Story'.

Clint Eastwood, besides the other stuff that has been said about him, is distinctive because visually he uses an old film language. And this while almost every other contemporary (Hollywood) director looks out for "maximum profit" in each scene. These days nobody is shy to use 5 close-ups in one single scene. It seems to be a must, a trick to get the audience's attention. I don't think there are more than 5 close-ups in 'Mystic River'.

David Lean is one very distinguishable director. Before Janusz Kaminski, in the 70s and 80s, there was lot of Lean to be found in Spielberg. Kaminski changed that (although Schindler's List still utilizes Leanish transitions). In fact, as an artist, Kaminski is serving himself and therefore is competing with Spielberg. In recent Spielberg movies it was always Janusz who was the "star". Look at 'The Terminal'. The two things that really stood out in this movie were the photography and the beautiful music of John Williams. Each time I found Spielberg's contribution the less enchanting. Could it be Spielberg is surrounding himself with too much talent? Is he relying too much on others to come up with the magic? I'm drifting away...Ah yes, David Lean: the scope, the grandeur, the love for beauty...

------------
Alex Cremers

I also have a difficult time understanding why Ron Howard has become the poster child for bland directors. Both Apollo 13 and A beautiful Mind had me rivetted throughout, and that means that at the very least, he was competent enough to have let the story shine through in both cases.

--
H

I loved NIGHT SHIFT!

Night Shift is one of my favorite comedies, but I'm not sure Ron Howard had a lot to do with what made it so damnn funny (that would be Keaton and Winkler). IMO, Apollo 13 is the only great film he's made, and again that might have less to do with him and more to do with his cast and the compelling story of the crew. I think about the best you can say for him is he's a decent actor's director.

I know a director that has a distinctive (poor) visual
style- Tony Scott. Every one of his films have the same
things- tons of close ups (hardly any two shots), way
too many quick edits with his close ups (his action
scenes are incompetent), no sense of environment or
surroundings because of all the fucking close ups, and
most of his films are made with bad screenplays. His
films are way too pushy and flashy- the characters are
forced down your throat with the poor camera work. I
would guess that he has worked with several cinematographers
so his "visual style" is his choice for every project he
is involved in. He is a hack, and I wish he would go away.

Ron Howard and Clint Eastwood make really good films
because they let the viewer watch the film. They don't
shove their work in your face, and they know good
screenplays, unlike Tony The Hack Scott.

Which then goes back to my original point that it's not always all about the director.

Ummm... what is it do you think directors do? Directing comedic performances is especially hard because comedy is more subjective than drama. And trust me, a bad director can make any compelling story boring.

David

Ummm, whatever that means. Anyhow, 'Opie' was a pup of 27 when he stood behind the camera and let Michael Keaton run amok. Is he a great director of comedies? His track record apart from Night Shift would suggest otherwise. And what could be more 'subjective' than an opinion on his drama 'A Beautiful Mind?' I feel it's a manipulative movie-of-the-week, with one of the least-deserving Best Picture Oscars in history. Others think it's the greatest film of the decade.