Which directors have identifiable styles?

I was having a discussion about different directors, and we were talking about directorial styles. I realized that I’m not sure I could specify the styles of many of my favorite directors (or my least-favorite directors, for that matter). I don’t know if my cinematic tastes are just not refined enough, or if some directors don’t really have an identifiable signature. And I’m not talking about the subject matter that some directors choose, but more of HOW they choose to shoot their movies.

I’ll start with some easy ones:

Wes Anderson: centered framing, muted color palettes

Terry Gilliam: wide-angle shots (especially moving to extreme close-ups), fantastical elements in a mundane setting

Zack Snyder: extreme uses of slow motion

Michael Bay: golden-hour lighting, saturated colors, circular tracking shot around characters, slow motion

Paul Greengrass: shaky-cam handheld shots during action scenes, quick cuts

Sam Raimi: quick intercuts (often for humor), whip zooms

Quentin Tarantino: the camera as the viewer, nonlinear storytelling, closeups of women’s feet

IMO most of the good ones do, although there is a subset of great directors (Curtiz, for example) whose technique is deliberately self-abnegating in service of the story, and who respected a certain Hollywood house style.

Scorsese: Aggressive, restless use of camera movement, occasional bravura long takes (but not to a De Palma degree), tone-perfect application of period music, an occasionally agitated editing style with the assistance of his collaborator Thelma Schoonmaker
Welles: Composition in depth and long takes, although this has sometimes been overstated; even in Kane he makes excellent use of montage (e.g. breakfast sequence) and in later films (Chimes at Midnight, F For Fake) he develops it further. Welles is one of the most mercurial and constantly-evolving of directors.
Kurosawa: Blocking which subtly enhances the dramatic impact of a scene, kinetic use of panning motions to impart excitement
Fellini: From La Dolce Vita onward you see some strong stylistic indicators, including a tendency to emphasize the grotesque in lens choice and costuming, as well as a fondness for using camera movement to put in “surprise closeups” at the end of a tracking shot.
Ozu: Eyeline directly into camera; camera placed at the level of a person sitting on a tatami mat; use of static atmospheric shots to establish mood and setting

One could go on…

I honestly rarely notice great director choices in camera, but bad action cameras do draw notice.

I see you Michael 1000 flash cuts Bay.

However there are two stand outs in action choreography and cinematography I want to flag.

Jackie Chan, and Sammo Hung.

Both have acted or designed some of the best action scenes I have watched. Jackie, especially in his younger Hong Kong days, had a very clear personal style that mixed humor, physicality, and creativity into choreography in a most entertaining way. Knowledge of the stunt work and a relentless work ethic made some truly memorable scenes.

Sammo has done choreography in many movies too, most notably recently the Ip Man films. And he has a clear sense of the physicality, and understands how to use movement in conjunction with cameras to maximize the impact. How to use a fight to tell a story. His background in acting as well as stunt performing allows him to use space well.

There is nobody in the US film scene that I feel matches them.

Guy Ritchie
Clint Eastwood

Lynch.

De Palma

Paul Thomas Anderson has a very distinct style, but I lack the terminology to properly express it. If another poster comes along and fills in the blanks I will be very eager to read it.

I think directors who also write the movies are much more likely to have a distinct style of film, as their personality and skills can be seen not only in how scenes are shot but the scenes themselves. I don’t think a ‘Tarantino’ movie would have anywhere near the same meaning if he didn’t also write all of his movies.

To be considered an auteur director seems to focus less on consistent thematic preoccupations across films and more on the repetition of visual storytelling devices across multiple films. So many standout national cinema directors make brilliant genre inflected debuts, but then struggle to stand out in Hollywood.

One thing that seems to be essential to capture the attention of the film critical community is using the camera to do more than just realize the script in a formulaic way. Back in the 50s, French film critics attempted to artistically valorise Hollywood products of the studio era, where the director was usually pictured as someone surrounded by constraints and interventions – particularly at the pre- and post-production stages. The script was pre-set, the actors were already cast, the contract set designers and costumers were wheeled in to provide their usual contribution, the editing was often out of the director’s hands. So what they did around that during the shooting, specifically through establishing a mood or suggesting an attitude through the camera’s placement relative to the actors and set , was what singled them out for celebration. A lot of the European emigres, like Fritz Lang and Joseph Von Sternberg, used to boast about weaving light and shadow around whatever awful script they had to been assigned to.

While writer-directors are usually considered to have more authorial control, as they originate the project, filmmakers like David Fincher and most of Scorsese’s pictures are still considered auteurs because their stylistic approaches are so readily identifiable. One obvious thing is that they move the camera consistently - it’s hard not to love a good pan, track, or tilt shot!

Villeneuve. in particular, the brilliant pacing, shot framing and use of sound (and lack thereof) blending together. It creates an uncanny ability to set and manipulate a mood throughout the picture.

Great post.

Aronofsky, obviously. It’s called the Aronofsky montage: rapid cuts so fast you’re barely sure you’ve seen them, usually series of extreme close ups that tell these 3 second stories.

Spike Lee and the trademark (actors on a) dolly shot.

In truth, most directors turn out to have an identifiable visual style if they stick around long enough to make a bunch of movies. Even Michael Curtiz - the classic example of a old-time studio director that the auteur theorist claimed had no specific style at all, instead changing with each new assignment - had one. This guy here identifies the distinctive Curtiz trick as the forward tracking establishing shot.

My pantheon of directing gods (for American directors) is Lynch, the Coens, Kubrick and Altman. All of those have very personal and distinctive styles. As does Guy Ritchie. And of course classics like Hitchcock, Kazan, Ford. There are lots of others, for good or for bad. I think you could argue that Michael Bay has a distinctive style, but that isn’t necessarily a good thing!

Andrei Tarkovsky: Long, slow, quiet panning shots that give the viewer a lot to contemplate.

Robert Rodriguez, from El Mariachi to Battle Angel Alita, his framing of action sequences and camera motion is distinctive. Although definitely toned down for the big budget CGI-heavy BAA. I can only imagine that the need to do her eyes in every scene made for a lot of fixed camera shots.

I really like his work in El Mariachi, even more so in Once Upon a Time in Mexico (I love all three of these movies, but Once Upon a Time the most). Machete is SOOO much fun. And From Dawn Til Dusk is also SOOO much fun.

Oddly, the one I like the least is probably his most touted: Sin City. I just find it overly affected.

Terrence Malick is pretty damn easy to pick out.

Scorsese. 90% is mob/gangster ;)

Alfonso Cuaron and his long, complex, when-will-it-cut-away shots. They are sometimes called one-shots (which can cause confusion, as usually a one-shot is a shot containing one person, as compared to two-shots with both people in the frame) or oners (which can also cause confusion with how the word looks, see also the Oneders in That Thing You Do) or a long shot (which can cause confusion as a long shot is understood as dealing with distance from the camera, not the length of time of the take). Cuaron’s lengthy takes help to sell the realism of what is happening. An actor couldn’t memorize how to run through a ghetto, sneak around a firefight between a terrorist gang and an infantry column, rescue a baby, then make his way back through the army to relative safety! An actor couldn’t make her way from Low Earth Orbit safely to the ground after her spacecraft was destroyed! They must be some events that actually happened and the camera happened to be there – or at least, such is the illusion.

Edgar Wright’s framing is ruthlessly disciplined. Everything sets up a payoff or triggers a payoff. Even when it’s just something funny.

Ishiro Honda - Actors in rubber suits stomping miniatures.

I was going to mention Cuaron for this reason, but also just how well he choreographs even simple short shots to be transitioning from one idea to another seamlessly by a carefully moving but unobtrusive camera. My daughter and I were doing a Harry Potter marathon, and it’s interesting how we go from some humdrum filmmaking, cameras plunked about unceremoniously, in the first and second flick, to Cuaron’s which suddenly brings richness and nuance to every shot.