Directors style

[BrownwriterChi]

Hi,

I have always wondered what people mean when they talk about a film directors style of directing. Can someone explain what that is supposed to mean?

Thanks,

BWC

[directorik]

I'm sure there will be people much more educated than
me who can explain it. For me it's like the old Potter
Stewart quote.

Watch five films by David Lynch

Watch five films by Martin Scorsese

Watch five films by Alfred Hitchcock

Watch five films by Danny Boyle

Watch five films by John Woo

Actually defining it is beyond my capabilities as a writer.

[indietalk]

The style comes from the choices. If those choices become a pattern, then the director has a style.

That's all I got!

[Papertwinproductions]

It's what deters one Director from another, what makes a film recognizable to be that of that certain Director.

A "Style" can be justified as a single mode of their material, e.g Tarrantino for his sharp dialogue. Or numerous, e.g Hitchcock is noted as the somewhat emperor of "Suspense", with a method of story-telling via--which was a unique style at the time-- manipulated camera angles.

[Dreadylocks]

On another hand, some people refer to a director's style in the sense of: Is he an actor's director or a more technical director?

Mike Nichols was considered a great actor's director. He was all about the rehearsal and the realism of the performance and about working with the actors in depth.

George Lucas hated actors and just wanted to make his movie and tell his stories. His way of directing actors was, according to actors who worked with him, to say 'OK, let's do another take. Same thing, only better.'

Is that what you were talking about?

[BrownwriterChi]

ohh, so it means how they choose to tell thier story. Now i get it. Yea, thats what i was wondering about. thanks.

BWC

[Aaron.Faulkner]

This comes out of the French New Wave and the emergence of the film auteur. Basically, it was conceived that no matter if the director wrote the screenplay or not, based on a consistently applied methodology of approaching the material, spread throughout the canon of their work, a certain style could be defined for the director. The so-called "power" of filmmaking shifted from the screenwriter to the director (the newly defined auteur).

[sonnyboo]

Originally Posted by Aaron.Faulkner

This comes out of the French New Wave and the emergence of the film auteur.

I think directors like David Lean, Orson Welles, John Ford, Akira Kurasawa, Viktor Fleming, Alfred Hitchock, Sergei Eisenstein and a few hundred others like them had a "directing style" before the French New Wave.

A director's style, to me, is just whatever makes a film unique to that director. In the case of someone like Tim Burton, its the choice of material and especially art direction of his earlier work was unmistakable and unique to Tim Burton.

For someone like Stanley Kubrick, it didn't matter what genre he was in, his style was in his handling of the story in terms of pacing, lighting, cinematography and editing that make his movies unique to Kubrick. For Steven Spielberg there is almost always a story about a father not being the best dad as a recurring theme in the material, as well as whatever visual he's showing causing the actors to give a non-verbal, slack jawed look of "awe" at whatever it is (dinosaurs, aliens, a mothership, etc.).

Wes Anderson's style is to not use the rule of 3rds that much have have people framed dead center. John Woo always has someone jumping sideways while shooting one pistol in each hand (usually a .45).

So in order for a director to have a "style" of directing, they either have to have a body of work with some kind of thematic or visual consistency, or even if they've only ever made one film there is something intrinsically specific to that director about it.

It's not an easy thing to define. It's a very subjective thing, a "director's style".

[Grand Upper]

Akira Kurasawa, imo.

[Aaron.Faulkner]

Originally Posted by sonnyboo

I think directors like David Lean, Orson Welles, John Ford, Akira Kurasawa, Viktor Fleming, Alfred Hitchock, Sergei Eisenstein and a few hundred others like them had a "directing style" before the French New Wave.

Oh most definitely! I'm merely commenting on the discourse we are presumably working in; the term rather than the act itself. To have a style is one thing but to be cognizant of it, to study it meticulously, it is another. Traditionally, in film studies, the group of editors over at Cahiers du cinema (Bazin, Truffaut, Rohmer, Godard, etc. etc.) are credited for examining and bringing to consciousness the term of the auteur. That's all I was pointing out. Just the other angle. But what you've said is obvious and cannot be forgotten! Good point. =)

EDIT: Before someone thinks it I should state that it is not my intention to insult the intelligence of anyone. If you already knew about Cahiers du cinema, AWESOME! But for those who weren't privy to that information, there you go!

[Ernest Worthing]

I had to write a paper in film class titled 'Director vs Auteur.'

The problem is i wrote it 6 years ago. Ill try to look for th document later and if i find it, ill post it here for you.

EDIT: no idea where it went. sorry.

[corpustle]

I did a paper while i was at university which asked whether an actor could be an auteur. Made for an interesting study. I find the auteur theory ridiculous to an extent however. While directors undoubtedly have styles, film is too collaborative for any director to ever lay claim to every creative decision and without making every creative decision how can one ever truly be the soul 'author' of anything?

[sonnyboo]

Originally Posted by corpustle

I did a paper while i was at university which asked whether an actor could be an auteur. Made for an interesting study. I find the auteur theory ridiculous to an extent however. While directors undoubtedly have styles, film is too collaborative for any director to ever lay claim to every creative decision and without making every creative decision how can one ever truly be the soul 'author' of anything?

While in principal, I agree, there seems to be an exception or two. Stanley Kubrick, from everything I have read and seen, DID make every single decision. His crew, the co-writers, and editors all found it quite maddening that the man was such a control freak, but the films wound up being singularly his vision.

I don't want to be an auteur. I like the collaboration and working with others, taking the best of the input and collectively making the best movie you can.

[Aaron.Faulkner]

Originally Posted by corpustle

I did a paper while i was at university which asked whether an actor could be an auteur. Made for an interesting study. I find the auteur theory ridiculous to an extent however. While directors undoubtedly have styles, film is too collaborative for any director to ever lay claim to every creative decision and without making every creative decision how can one ever truly be the soul 'author' of anything?

And then there's Roland Barthes' Death of the Author' to consider.

[corpustle]

I just don't see how if you haven't written the screenplay you can be the 'author'. I just disagree. It may be their vision, but that vision has already been morphed, shaped and crafted by the words on the page. when it boils down to it i always end up agreeing with the thoughts of William Goldman who on hearing of auteur theory responded with, "What's the punchline?" and then followed up his detailed analysis with, "It [Auteur Theory] sure as shit isn't true in Hollywood."

Also when directors talk about auteur theory, they end up sounding like dicks!... I cite....

"To me, the director is a superstar. The best films are best because of nobody but the director. You speak of Citizen Kane or 8½ or Seven Samurai it's thanks to the director who was the star of it. He makes the film, he creates it."
(Roman Polanski in The Film Director As Superstar by Joseph Gelmis, Pelican Books, 1970)