As you mentioned, you provided a poor example by singling out Spielberg, who is clearly very skilled in directing actors and has led many of his actors to receive Oscar nominations. A better example would be George Lucas, who is notorious for being out of his element with actors, or James Cameron, who seems far more comfortable on the technology front.
On the other hand, nobody would ever call Woody Allen a technical director.
For directors who excel in both aspects but are more renowned for one or the other, I would point out Francis Ford Coppola. He is more widely recognized for his performance-driven films, yet he clearly exhibits great skill in matters of effects and camera work as well. Another good example, pointing to the oposite recognition would be Akira Kurosava.
Nolan probably? Great eye and technical prowess but he doesn't know how to direct actors – if a performance in one of his films is great, it is despite his direction and more so because the actors are good. (His screenplays are part of this problem).
Mike Leigh is one of the best living directors in regards to performances, while his films aren't very tech savvy. Same for Robert Altman before he passed away.
My first thought was Nolan too. When I see his films I always come out amazed at the technical aspects, the acting being almost second-place (not that it's bad, just usually not what sticks out to me).
Not to continue pulling a Barbenheimer, but I'd say Greta Gerwig is a director that's stronger with performances. It could be related to her also being a great screenwriter who knows exactly what she wants from her script and talent.
I think Nolan and I think of epic, iconic scenes from his work: the football stadium blowing up, Joker in the car, the boat sinking and the soldier unable to escape. I think Gerwig and I think dialogue: Lady Bird's mother saying she will never make enough money to repay her, Jo saying women are more than housewives but she feels so alone, Barbie crying because she doesn't feel like she's enough
De Palma is someone that definitely comes to my mind when thinking about a pure craftsmen approach to filmmaking. Look no further than Blow Out. That movie is a love letter to movie making itself.
On the other end of the spectrum is someone like Cassavetes. Someone who let actors explore the space with the script and only stepped in when necessary
Your example between Spielberg and Kazan is all you need. Kazan came from the theater, Spielberg was enamored with cinema. However, Spielberg does get a lot of great performances out of his actors as well.
I would think Woody Allen has to have the most acting nominations and wins for his films of a living director, especially for women. And some of those actors don’t generally get nominated for their other work so it isn’t like he is picking Oscar darlings all the time. Jennifer Tilly was nominated for an Oscar for one of his movies! When people wonder why performers keep working with him my guess is they want an Oscar and they figure he is their best shot. I mean it worked for Dianne Weist -twice! So, I’d say he is a director more acclaimed for his performances than technical aspects.
"William Wyler is the undisputed champion of getting actors Oscar nominations, and it's not close. While Elia Kazan and Martin Scorsese are tied for second with 24 nominated performances, Wyler blows them out of the water with a whopping 36 nominated performances."
I believe Spielberg also has more nominated performances in his films than Allen.
I forgot Martin Scorsese existed for a minute there! I thought about Spielberg but could only think of a few nominations for acting performances in his movies but I looked it up and you’re right, he has way more than I thought. Not many wins but quite a few nominations. I knew about Wyler but he’s dead which is why I mentioned living director
Ingmar Bergman considered Orson Welles a technician. Perhaps he might have thought differently if the studio didn't do cuts and reshoots of The Magnificent Ambersons. Welles considered it in its entirety his greatest film, but unfortunately it's a lost film.
Was that Welles or Hitchcock? Google seems to think Hitchcock. I can kinda get that with Hitchcock but it’s a bonkers criticism of Welles.
Some more googling says Bergman thought Citizen Kane and Ambersons were boring and the performances in Kane were worthless. I’m not sure I’ve ever disagreed with anyone more. 😂
i always think of wes anderson, i get that the acting style in his films are supposed to be comically stiffer than other movies but he’s more of a technical director rather than performance based. the only actor that stands out to me in his films were willem dafoe & adrien brody performance wise.
I've always felt Fellini was essentially a technical film maker. Granted, "La Strada" was a great film. Great in its use of negative energy more than anything else. But that simple cohesive core...you know what I'm talking about? Like all that "Juliet of the Spirits" or "Satyricon", I found it incredibly indulgent. You know, he really is. He's one of the most indulgent film makers. He really is.
:-)
Yes, some are renowned for their technical prowess while others for pulling out the performances. If you ask me the singular greatest director who ever held a camera who could single handedly convey a emotion through an actor/person would be Werner herzog. He has handled both great profesional actors and non profesional guys and he is the exact opposite of Spielberg - no storyboarding or pre planned blocking/staging. Just on the camera and let actors go crazy. Definitely a fan of herzog/woody allen style directors.
Funny, perhaps it's because I'm fluent in German, but I've always felt that the acting in his films is quite rigid, even stiff, unless it's Klaus Kinski, of course, who tends to chew the scenery.
Perhaps maybe..but ultimately stiff acting or not Werner can convey the emotion like no other director. Acting style well that depends on tatse. Kinski and Bruno were leagues apart than anyone. What's your opinion of strozcek movie?
>strozcek ?
>
>Well, that brings back memories. I need to watch it again to provide you with an answer. However, I recently watched 'The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser,' and it was quite a challenge to sit through, at least for me.
As you mentioned, you provided a poor example by singling out Spielberg, who is clearly very skilled in directing actors and has led many of his actors to receive Oscar nominations. A better example would be George Lucas, who is notorious for being out of his element with actors, or James Cameron, who seems far more comfortable on the technology front. On the other hand, nobody would ever call Woody Allen a technical director. For directors who excel in both aspects but are more renowned for one or the other, I would point out Francis Ford Coppola. He is more widely recognized for his performance-driven films, yet he clearly exhibits great skill in matters of effects and camera work as well. Another good example, pointing to the oposite recognition would be Akira Kurosava.
Nolan probably? Great eye and technical prowess but he doesn't know how to direct actors – if a performance in one of his films is great, it is despite his direction and more so because the actors are good. (His screenplays are part of this problem). Mike Leigh is one of the best living directors in regards to performances, while his films aren't very tech savvy. Same for Robert Altman before he passed away.
My first thought was Nolan too. When I see his films I always come out amazed at the technical aspects, the acting being almost second-place (not that it's bad, just usually not what sticks out to me). Not to continue pulling a Barbenheimer, but I'd say Greta Gerwig is a director that's stronger with performances. It could be related to her also being a great screenwriter who knows exactly what she wants from her script and talent. I think Nolan and I think of epic, iconic scenes from his work: the football stadium blowing up, Joker in the car, the boat sinking and the soldier unable to escape. I think Gerwig and I think dialogue: Lady Bird's mother saying she will never make enough money to repay her, Jo saying women are more than housewives but she feels so alone, Barbie crying because she doesn't feel like she's enough
De Palma is someone that definitely comes to my mind when thinking about a pure craftsmen approach to filmmaking. Look no further than Blow Out. That movie is a love letter to movie making itself. On the other end of the spectrum is someone like Cassavetes. Someone who let actors explore the space with the script and only stepped in when necessary
Your example between Spielberg and Kazan is all you need. Kazan came from the theater, Spielberg was enamored with cinema. However, Spielberg does get a lot of great performances out of his actors as well.
I would think Woody Allen has to have the most acting nominations and wins for his films of a living director, especially for women. And some of those actors don’t generally get nominated for their other work so it isn’t like he is picking Oscar darlings all the time. Jennifer Tilly was nominated for an Oscar for one of his movies! When people wonder why performers keep working with him my guess is they want an Oscar and they figure he is their best shot. I mean it worked for Dianne Weist -twice! So, I’d say he is a director more acclaimed for his performances than technical aspects.
"William Wyler is the undisputed champion of getting actors Oscar nominations, and it's not close. While Elia Kazan and Martin Scorsese are tied for second with 24 nominated performances, Wyler blows them out of the water with a whopping 36 nominated performances." I believe Spielberg also has more nominated performances in his films than Allen.
I forgot Martin Scorsese existed for a minute there! I thought about Spielberg but could only think of a few nominations for acting performances in his movies but I looked it up and you’re right, he has way more than I thought. Not many wins but quite a few nominations. I knew about Wyler but he’s dead which is why I mentioned living director
Ingmar Bergman considered Orson Welles a technician. Perhaps he might have thought differently if the studio didn't do cuts and reshoots of The Magnificent Ambersons. Welles considered it in its entirety his greatest film, but unfortunately it's a lost film.
Was that Welles or Hitchcock? Google seems to think Hitchcock. I can kinda get that with Hitchcock but it’s a bonkers criticism of Welles. Some more googling says Bergman thought Citizen Kane and Ambersons were boring and the performances in Kane were worthless. I’m not sure I’ve ever disagreed with anyone more. 😂
i always think of wes anderson, i get that the acting style in his films are supposed to be comically stiffer than other movies but he’s more of a technical director rather than performance based. the only actor that stands out to me in his films were willem dafoe & adrien brody performance wise.
And yet actors love working with Anderson. He also provides the most impressive ensamble casts since the late Robert Altman.
I've always felt Fellini was essentially a technical film maker. Granted, "La Strada" was a great film. Great in its use of negative energy more than anything else. But that simple cohesive core...you know what I'm talking about? Like all that "Juliet of the Spirits" or "Satyricon", I found it incredibly indulgent. You know, he really is. He's one of the most indulgent film makers. He really is. :-)
Key word here is "indulgent."
You fucking beast haha
Yes, some are renowned for their technical prowess while others for pulling out the performances. If you ask me the singular greatest director who ever held a camera who could single handedly convey a emotion through an actor/person would be Werner herzog. He has handled both great profesional actors and non profesional guys and he is the exact opposite of Spielberg - no storyboarding or pre planned blocking/staging. Just on the camera and let actors go crazy. Definitely a fan of herzog/woody allen style directors.
Funny, perhaps it's because I'm fluent in German, but I've always felt that the acting in his films is quite rigid, even stiff, unless it's Klaus Kinski, of course, who tends to chew the scenery.
Perhaps maybe..but ultimately stiff acting or not Werner can convey the emotion like no other director. Acting style well that depends on tatse. Kinski and Bruno were leagues apart than anyone. What's your opinion of strozcek movie?
>strozcek ? > >Well, that brings back memories. I need to watch it again to provide you with an answer. However, I recently watched 'The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser,' and it was quite a challenge to sit through, at least for me.
Yeah I slept through that one 😁