|
|
Post by lune7000 on Nov 22, 2021 13:33:42 GMT
If you watched 10 movies and two were by the same director, could you figure out which ones they were?
I am skeptical that people could really do this (unless Tim Burton due to his gothic sets). I am not sure a director's style is really that identifiable given all the variables in a movie
|
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 22, 2021 13:46:40 GMT
I'm pretty sure I could tell if a film was directed by Leone, Carpenter, Wes Anderson and Hitchcock. And probably Tarantino and Edgar Wright. Or if someone is trying to emulate them.
|
|
|
|
Post by lune7000 on Nov 22, 2021 14:52:29 GMT
I'm pretty sure I could tell if a film was directed by Leone, Carpenter, Wes Anderson and Hitchcock. And probably Tarantino and Edgar Wright. Or if someone is trying to emulate them. How? Is it the number of close up shots? Camera angles? Don't other directors use similar shots?
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Nov 22, 2021 14:55:00 GMT
Depends on the director. Terry Gilliam or Steven Spielberg yes, Les Mayfield or Jon Turtetaub no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Nov 22, 2021 14:58:07 GMT
Sometimes i can, but not all of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 22, 2021 15:17:37 GMT
Depends on the director.
With directors like Stanley Kubrick and Woody Allen, it would be extremely easy to pick their movies out. Their style is immediately recognizable. You would be able to tell a Woody Allen movie just by the opening credits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Nov 22, 2021 15:18:11 GMT
I'm pretty sure I could tell if a film was directed by Leone, Carpenter, Wes Anderson and Hitchcock. And probably Tarantino and Edgar Wright. Or if someone is trying to emulate them. How? Is it the number of close up shots? Camera angles? Don't other directors use similar shots? Not sostie, but to give an answer, I don’t think it’s what directors do as much as how they do it. As in, yes, many directors can use extreme-high-angle, but Hitchcock does them so many times for scenes that most directors would probably cover in medium shots. But it isn’t just a matter of shot choice. Howard Hawks drilled his lead actresses on specific ways to walk and talk, to the point that Lauren Bacall in The Big Sleep and Angie Dickinson in Rio Bravo not only act the same but also move the same way through a set. You don’t see that in movies by ostensibly similar directors like Raoul Walsh. That’s a tiny piece of the iceberg, but yeah, I think it’s possible to tell differences between directors. I always have been able to tell the difference between Hitchcock and a Hitchcock impersonator, even when I was a kid. (I remember thinking the original Cape Fear—which even has an amazing Bernard Herrmann score—was a Hitchcock but knowing somehow that something was off.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Xcalatë on Nov 22, 2021 15:28:38 GMT
Depends on the director. Terry Gilliam or Steven Spielberg yes, Les Mayfield or Jon Turtetaub no. This. People like Gilliam, Spielberg, Burton and Soderbergh have a very distinct style but there are other big ones that are almost impossible to tell. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 22, 2021 15:38:47 GMT
Depends on the director. Terry Gilliam or Steven Spielberg yes, Les Mayfield or Jon Turtetaub no. This. People like Gilliam, Spielberg, Burton and Soderbergh have a very distinct style but there are other big ones that are almost impossible to tell. If you threw in A Nightmare Before Christmas, that would make it more difficult.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 22, 2021 15:53:00 GMT
I've never actually noticed how many times Kubrick has key scene taking place in bathrooms.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 22, 2021 16:19:54 GMT
The difference between the big names mentioned like Spielberg or Kubrick or Burton, sure. Even some classic names like Hitchcock versus Lang or Ford versus Capra, yeah alright.
The prolific directors who put out a lot of similar work in the ‘30s and ‘40s such as Michael Curtiz and Raoul Walsh, or Henry Hathaway versus Henry King, that’s much tougher.
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Nov 22, 2021 16:27:41 GMT
Despite what I wrote above, on thinking the question over some more I have to say I don’t go into a movie looking for a director’s signature. I definitely do think that directors have distinctions and identifying marks, for both good and ill, but while watching a movie I don’t analyze it to see how many of those identifying marks are there. Where the analysis comes in, I think, is when you’ve seen many of that director’s movies and can identify certain distinct traits and qualities, looking in retrospect. Andrew Sarris wrote that auteurism “is a theory of film history rather than film prophecy”; that’s basically what I mean. EDIT: moviemouth rightly noted that this post of mine is pretty darn confusing. I’ve changed a few things. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 22, 2021 16:34:40 GMT
Despite what I wrote above, on thinking the question over some more I have to say I don’t go into a movie looking for a director’s signature. I definitely do think that directors have distinctions and identifying marks, for both good and ill, but it’s not that I judge a movie on whether I can tell it was directed by so-and-so. Where the analysis comes in, I think, is when you’ve seen many of that director’s movies and can identify certain distinct traits and qualities, looking in retrospect. Andrew Sarris wrote that auteurism “is a theory of film history rather than film prophecy”; that’s basically what I mean. What do you mean by that? You mean you don't watch certain director's movies due to their specific style? When I go to a Ridley Scott movie for example, I want to see a Ridley Scott movie. Part of the reason I like his movies so much is because of his visual trademarks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Nov 22, 2021 16:42:35 GMT
Despite what I wrote above, on thinking the question over some more I have to say I don’t go into a movie looking for a director’s signature. I definitely do think that directors have distinctions and identifying marks, for both good and ill, but it’s not that I judge a movie on whether I can tell it was directed by so-and-so. Where the analysis comes in, I think, is when you’ve seen many of that director’s movies and can identify certain distinct traits and qualities, looking in retrospect. Andrew Sarris wrote that auteurism “is a theory of film history rather than film prophecy”; that’s basically what I mean. What do you mean by that? You mean you don't watch certain director's movies due to their specific style? When I go to a Ridley Scott movie for example, I want to see a Ridley Scott movie. Part of the reason I like his movies so much is because of his visual trademarks. I’m probably expressing myself poorly. I definitely go to movies because I like a director’s style, but while I’m watching I don’t usually try to think about what distinguishes one director from another, which seems to be what the OP’s asking. (Does that make sense?) I just saw Scott’s Prometheus, for example, and while watching I wasn’t trying to cross-reference with Alien and Blade Runner. (When I reviewed it here, though, those movies were my cross references.)
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 22, 2021 16:58:49 GMT
What do you mean by that? You mean you don't watch certain director's movies due to their specific style? When I go to a Ridley Scott movie for example, I want to see a Ridley Scott movie. Part of the reason I like his movies so much is because of his visual trademarks. I’m probably expressing myself poorly. I definitely go to movies because I like a director’s style, but while I’m watching I don’t usually try to think about what distinguishes one director from another, which seems to be what the OP’s asking. (Does that make sense?) I just saw Scott’s Prometheus, for example, and while watching I wasn’t trying to cross-reference with Alien and Blade Runner. (When I reviewed it here, though, those movies were my cross references.) Oh, I see what you mean now. Noticing what makes a director unique and different from other directors isn't something I try and do, it is just something that is unavoidable. Like distinguishing between different kinds of good foods. When eating steak I am not thinking about what makes steak different than pizza, it is just something I recognize without even thinking about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Nov 22, 2021 17:04:01 GMT
Oh, I see what you mean now. Noticing what makes a director unique and different from other directors isn't something I try and do, it is just something that is unavoidable. Like distinguishing between different kinds of good foods. When eating steak I am not thinking about what makes steak different than pizza, it is just something I recognize without even thinking about it. Well, yes, sometimes it’s unavoidable for me too. Thus, say, my story about being able to tell Cape Fear isn’t a Hitchcock. But, as politicidal noted, it’s terribly hard—and even, perhaps, undesirable—to distinguish, say, a Tay Garnett and a William Dieterle. (And I’m a fan of both directors.) It’s possible, but mostly only in retrospect.
|
|
|
|
Post by lune7000 on Nov 22, 2021 17:14:29 GMT
Despite what I wrote above, on thinking the question over some more I have to say I don’t go into a movie looking for a director’s signature. I definitely do think that directors have distinctions and identifying marks, for both good and ill, but it’s not that I judge a movie on whether I can tell it was directed by so-and-so. Where the analysis comes in, I think, is when you’ve seen many of that director’s movies and can identify certain distinct traits and qualities, looking in retrospect. Andrew Sarris wrote that auteurism “is a theory of film history rather than film prophecy”; that’s basically what I mean. What do you mean by that? You mean you don't watch certain director's movies due to their specific style? When I go to a Ridley Scott movie for example, I want to see a Ridley Scott movie. Part of the reason I like his movies so much is because of his visual trademarks. Leaving out the Alien movies- what are some of the visual trademarks of his movies? the ship designs give away his signature in the Alien movies but what is a trademark that is not dependent on set design? What about scene transitions? Camera distance? Length of scenes before a cut? Voiceovers? Lighting? that kind of stuff
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 22, 2021 17:15:47 GMT
Oh, I see what you mean now. Noticing what makes a director unique and different from other directors isn't something I try and do, it is just something that is unavoidable. Like distinguishing between different kinds of good foods. When eating steak I am not thinking about what makes steak different than pizza, it is just something I recognize without even thinking about it. Well, yes, sometimes it’s unavoidable for me too. Thus, say, my story about being able to tell Cape Fear isn’t a Hitchcock. But, as politicidal noted, it’s terribly hard—and even, perhaps, undesirable—to distinguish, say, a Tay Garnett and a William Dieterle. (And I’m a fan of both directors.) It’s possible, but mostly only in retrospect. When it comes to Cape Fear it reminds me of a Hitchcock movie, but sort of a diluted Hitchcock movie. Not that it isn't good or even better than many of Hitchcock movies, but that the style isn't as distinct as Hitchcock. Same with Blow (2001) and Scorsese. Speaking of Scorsese, his version of Cape Fear reminds me more of a Hitchcock movie than the original. Though his is a direct throwback and he is purposely over-emphasizing the style. It also makes a difference in that it is one director with a very distinct style imitating another director with a very distinct style.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason143 on Nov 22, 2021 17:22:00 GMT
Only certain ones. A blind Tarintino film would be fairly obvious from prolonged dialogue scenes delivered in a stage-esque performance. Sergio Leone would also have certain signature traits you could recognise only from his movies.
But honestly for others it would be difficult. I couldnt tell you a blind movie from either Christopher Nolan or Dennis Villenue for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 22, 2021 17:24:34 GMT
What do you mean by that? You mean you don't watch certain director's movies due to their specific style? When I go to a Ridley Scott movie for example, I want to see a Ridley Scott movie. Part of the reason I like his movies so much is because of his visual trademarks. Leaving out the Alien movies- what are some of the visual trademarks of his movies? the ship designs give away his signature in the Alien movies but what is a trademark that is not dependent on set design? What about scene transitions? Camera distance? Length of scenes before a cut? Voiceovers? Lighting? that kind of stuff I just put a video showing his trademarks. That is the whole point of me posting all of those videos. One that is most noticeable is he likes sunlit skies and sunlight shining through stuff. He also has a very distinct type of slow-motion he uses, especially in movies made after Gladiator. He also likes making movies that don't take place in the present.
|
|
