Director Styles - the Clint v the Gee

Nique Zoolio

Nique Zoolio

I was just curious as to which kind of director people most appreciate. I have got two extremes here, using evidence from their latest films - the Clint Eastwood and the McGe.
Eastwood to me is a director that doesn't really care to move the camera, he doesn't care for fancy-dan stuff. He puts it at one place, leaves it there and lets the story evolve.
McGee- he does all that fancy-dan stuff. quick snaps here and there, revolving shots etc. He loves that stuff.
I realise that they are aiming at fairly different audience, different genres etc.
But Clint is highly acclaimed, Mr 'Multiple Oscar' (not a typo). McGeee has v little chance of that stuff (in my opinion) - but he seems to have more techincal ability. This suggests (to me) that succesful directing is less about fancy stuff and more about ability to let the story tell itself, to let the actors work it, and keep it simple (visually).
I was wondering what sort of director you see yourself as wanting to be?
 
I lean towards the Eastwood style, it's the style of Mendes, the Coens, and various others. McG is really just a byproduct of the king of the quick edits...Mr. Michael Bay (on a side note, it was great to here Brad Bird rip into these types of filmmakers on The Incredibles commentary track), and he really is inspired by the Hong Kong Action crowd.

But I will say that I enjoy more the director who is willing to mix it up. The director who uses every tool (camera, editorial, SFX) at his disposal to tell a story is the one I want to watch. The Birds, Speilbergs, Finchers of the world.

Poke
 
I want the actors to be the main emphasis, but always have those shots that give a new perspective on a familiar object. Odd angles, yet sensible ones. I usually base my screeplays out of images I recieve for shots. I am working on one such script right now where the basis for an image is:

A man looking through venetian blinds at a timelapsed sunset. The shadows of the blinds flicker over his face.

Working from a shot like that, which I see as visually stunning, I find the mood is set, and the story just comes. Then, it's about the actors, but if an oppourtunity for a neat perspective comes along- I take it.
Looking at the actor through a bottle of vodka, from behind, from above, a split-screen of thier facial features Bradybunch-style... whatever I happen to think of. Most of it is random, the hard part for me is putting that into sensible order.

Clint isn't too bad, but I never found his directing trademark. I think each person needs thier own style... Tim Burton, Spielburg, Fincher, Smith all have thier own recognizable style. You see one shot and you know who it was who directed the movie... it's unique. That's the kind of directing I admire- something distinguished (whether it's poo-poo humor or sullen drama, there is still the perspective).

-Logan-
 
Damn you Poke! I was typing and you quick-drawed me! You're a regular Clint.
Hey- we mentioned the same directors... are you my soulmate?
 
er......what have i begun?!?
I agree on the Fincher. His shot choices in Se7en were differnt to in The Panic Room.
in 7 he was all about low shots, in Panic Room there was all sorts of long trips through air vents and such like. Yeah, those who mix it up, definately.
 
While I find that I prefer the Clint Style I have nothing against camara movements, unless they take me out of the moment. I don't believe that anything the camara does, be it excessive motion or stagnation, should detract the viewer from the story.

Though there is the occasional camara gimick though that I enjoy. "Rules of Attraction" comes to mind. Most people I have spoken to immediatly go to the infamous split screen meld. While that scene was cool the first ten minutes of the film in which the major characters are introduced is some of the most interesting cinematography and editing I have seen.
 
I like a director like David Lynch...'the right tool for the job' school... from 'Eraserhead' to 'The Straight Story'.
 
Usually I find showy directors with lots of camera moves don't have anything to say. It's form over content. Directors who don't move the camera have confidence in their story. That said, some static movies have nothing to say and are just plain boring. In this case, I think McGee has nothing to say and Clint usually does.

Scott
 
Well, I'd mostly agree with you... but sometimes camera movement can add tension/any emotion to the screen. It's that form of art. Directing is a perspective, and a good director uses the camera and it's resources any way he can to get his views on film. Granted, a director who relies to heavily on the camera movement usually means they're hiding something, but I wouldn't say always.
In theatre, you get one view the entire time. Film is unique because you can show so many different things to someone at once.
 
For me there will ONLY be KUBRICK.

Oh, BTW... Clint is a boring director. Incredibly over-rated.
He should just go back to being the bland cardboard actor he is.
But I could do without his put on "scratchy voice" acting. Maybe someone should pop a lighting rig around him, it might get a "rise" out of him.

I will say this for him though... At least he isn't as boring as Harrison Ford! LOL!

But they are both less boring than David Duchovny!

-HAWKEYE

"Real is good... But interesting is better!" -Stanley Kubrick
 
Spatula said:
Well, I'd mostly agree with you... but sometimes camera movement can add tension/any emotion to the screen..
Click to expand...

what would you say, Spatula and everyone else, is the most tension packed scene, moment in film you can recall? I am curious to see if it included lots of camera movement or not.
 
Last edited:
Well,
One of them would certainly be that all-famous Shawshank Redemption shot. If it had just been a side shot, motionless angle of him in the river, I don't think it would have had that wonderful impact.
Then of course, there are some genres that need camera movment. Saving Private Ryan, for instance. The opening beach scene is shaky- the camera simulates the violence in it's movment.
A good example of just straight forward directing that worked, though, is "The Party" with Peter Sellers. I don't think fancy angles would have added to that. I mean, Birdie-Num-Num from over the shoulder, revolving around his head just would be plain stupid.
I should refine what I said earlier. It's really about the movie itself that should determine how the camera should be used. Sometimes flashy camera work can best show the scenario, sometimes it's better left to the actors to portray.
Things like Swordfish are good examples about how a movie can just be based around one freaking shot. Horrible movie. I don't like movies like that. But it's predecessor, the first Matrix, invented the shot to show the situation in a new and innovative way. Then they blew it in the sequels... oh well, that's life.

-Logan-
 
good reply spatula. i most certainly agree with the genre comment. i personally find the kind of cinema that is timeless is 'The Party' (i am aware that the racial issues in the film may now seem silly to some, but some of the situations still appeal greatly).
but things like Swordfish (that movie was one of my favourites for that year - only because it made me feel like a bloody writing genius) - well, like you say, the shot types just are not as timeless are they?
one of the most powerful moments for me - from the 3rd man, the ending scene, when the camera just stays - ooooooohhhh, it makes me melt.
 
HAWKEYE said:
For me there will ONLY be KUBRICK.

Oh, BTW... Clint is a boring director. Incredibly over-rated.
He should just go back to being the bland cardboard actor he is.
But I could do without his put on "scratchy voice" acting. Maybe someone should pop a lighting rig around him, it might get a "rise" out of him.

I will say this for him though... At least he isn't as boring as Harrison Ford! LOL!

But they are both less boring than David Duchovny!

-HAWKEYE

"Real is good... But interesting is better!" -Stanley Kubrick
Click to expand...
First of all, Kubrick's movies are the most boring and drawn out films out there to me. Even "bad" films are usually interesting to watch, if only because they are so bad...but Kubrick's works are intolerable to me...

...I think that you are forgetting that Clint isn't the cinematographer. He brings performances from his actors, and I think he does an EXCELLENT job of that. In "Million Dollar Baby", I saw several intriguing camera and framing techniques. Subtle, but effective. The one that sticks out in my mind right now is when the cornrolled boxer first takes off her robe...the way that was shot made her look like the most intimidating human alive. That is good directing...of the actor and the camera.

Clint as an actor: Clearly you don't like actors that play tough guys multiple times, but I'll tell you that, to me, the man with no name is one of the coolest characters ever. Clint added to that character with his manacing facial expressions. I also think that Dirty Harry Callihan had a lot of depth that Clint contributed.

So, in other words, I couldn't disagree with you more about Clint Eastwood. He's a huge inspiration to me.

Aaanyway, about the question: I don't know. I like both styles. I think a director that does an incredible job of directing with great cinematography and great storytelling at the same time is David Fincher....so...yeah..that wasn't a straight answer. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Logan,

Did you just compare Eastwood to Kubrick?!
Are you serious?!

I have to believe that you were just joking and trying to make a point.
You are correct... Eastwood is not a cinematogapher... Kubrick WAS!
Eastwood is not an artist... Kubrick WAS!
Kubrick made art... Eastwood makes "movies"!
Kubrick made art... Eastwood makes money!

The last few Eastwood films required editors to remove the first 20 minutes of Clint's eye
looking through the wrong end of the camera! If only he looked into the .44 Magnum that way we wouldn't have to deal with his infantile crap!

I suppose you could always be a "producer". 'cause making art with film or video is obviously NOT what you can do!

Kubrick's work was "intolerable" to you?! Be honest... You just didn't understand it!
Genius is often misunderstood by hack filmmakers like you!
Just go back to filming your girlfriend wiggling her ass for your next internet "production"!

Please do note that the majority of this posting board didn't even bother responding to your ridiculous comparison between Eastwoody and KUBRICK! Face it... You stepped out of your league on this one!

I'm responding because you cited me in your tirade in comparing genuine artistic filmmaking to hack shit.

You knew you would get this kind of response from me... And I won't let you drag the rest of the genuine artistic filmmakers on this board down to your crappy level.

Just a hint for you... Don't knock KUBRICK... People might just figure out that you don't know shit about what you are doing!

-HAWKEYE
 
As a big Kubrick fan, I must intercede.
I can understand how some people wouldn't like Kubrick's work- it's very niche filmmaking. The first time I saw 2001, I wasn't impressed until Hal started killing people... but I was young. Now I look back and love his works (especially Clockwork)...

But throwing insults isn't the way to prove your point! I happen to like Logan's films. And it isn't because my name is also Logan, it's because I understand what he's trying to do with them. It's not Kubrick, but it's different, and that's good. I haven't seen any of your productions, Hawkeye, but I don't think you should be calling people "hacks" when you don't even have a basis of comparison yourself.

And Eastwood, to me, is an average director. I think after being in movies for so long, he at least knows how to direct his actors, but other than that, he follows a simple formula for everything else. He's an old dog, doing it old-doggie style. It's nothing spectacular, but it works alright. He's no Kubrick, but then again, there is no Kubrick but Kubrick.


-Logan-
 
HAWKEYE said:
And I won't let you drag the rest of the genuine artistic filmmakers on this board down to your crappy level.

Just a hint for you... Don't knock KUBRICK... People might just figure out that you don't know shit about what you are doing!

-HAWKEYE
Click to expand...
There's no need for this.
 
well, bloody norah! what have i given birth to?!? :(

er........


Spatula said:
And Eastwood, to me, doing it old-doggie style. It's nothing spectacular
-Logan-
Click to expand...
:hmm:

sorry, just had to try to lighten the mood. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top