The Substance of Movie Directors' Styles

Icons like Spielberg, Hitchcock have their own personal stamps

Apr 28, 2009

When a movie is conceived, no matter who writes the script or runs the camera or edits the footage, it's often the director's style that shines the brightest.

Sure, movies are a group effort, from producer right on down to caterer, but it makes sense that directors are in a prime position to guide a movie's style.

Try this pop quiz, inspired by the old TV game show the $20,000 Pyramid. A list of director hallmarks will be presented, and the blank should be filled in with a director's name: "Things in movies directed by ..." Answers are below the questions, but no peeking:

Roger Corman put Edgar Allan Poe on movie map

Now some background from the world of snobby film criticism. Several New Wave European directors in the 1950s embraced auteur theory, which really is more of an aesthetic ideal than a rule. They asserted that, in a perfect world, a director's films should reflect that director's vision and style. Not surprisingly, screenwriters weren't especially thrilled with this ideal.

However, as the quiz above suggests, there are certain signature elements one can find in many directors' films.

Even B-grade directors have calling cards. If one screens Roger Corman's Poe cycle in the 1960s, one would often find similar gothic sets, recurring actors -- most notably Vincent Price -- and a low-budget sensibility. If a house burns down in a Corman Poe film, you're going to see the same footage, recycled from the House of Usher, Corman's first Poe-inspired film, which burned down at the end of the film. One could argue all films based on Poe works would have similar trademarks, but if you view a few of Corman's in a row, you find the same story rhythm, music and sensibility outside of the source material.

Of course, not all directors intentionally insert calling cards, such as Hitchcock's cameos, in their films. John Ford and John Wayne worked well together and were friends in real life, so they did several films together. Directors with strong personalities, like Ford, were more apt to prefer working with actors they liked in real life. And if a rambunctious type like Ford doesn't get along with an actor during a shoot, it's unlikely he'd be willing to work again with that actor.

In other instances, a director gets pigeonholed by studios that want to stick with what works, i.e. what brings audiences to theaters again and again. Spielberg's wide-eyed-wonder movies, from Jaws to Jurassic Park, make the most money (even the reviled Hook took in $300 million), and when he shot for adult themes, e.g. Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Always, audiences stayed away. He finally managed to run on all cylinders in 1994 with Schindler's List, which garnered critical and box office acclaim, not to mention the Oscar for Best Picture.

Some pigeonholed directors, though, have been more vocal. Golden Age director George Cukor had been labeled a great director of female-centered movies ("Little Women," "The Women"), but he had grown weary of studio assumptions and vented in a 1941 New York Times interview: "You direct a couple of successful pictures with women stars, so you become a 'woman's director ... When I went to Hollywood in 1929, they used to judge your talent by your personality. If you walked into the front office with a long face, they gave you straight drama; if you cracked jokes, they gave you comedy. I cracked jokes. For a long time after that whenever anyone mentioned my name for a serious picture, they'd shake their heads and say, 'No heart!' Then came 'Little Women' and they were surprised!"

Whether intentional, incidental or via studio whim, directors, indeed, have become brands in their own right.

The copyright of the article The Substance of Movie Directors' Styles in Classic Films is owned by Frank Rossi. Permission to republish The Substance of Movie Directors' Styles in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.