The Four Types of Filmmaker « Making the Movie

2May/1190

The Four Types of Filmmaker

To start with, let me say that this is just some completely unscientific observations. I'm not saying these are the only models for filmmakers. (We are all unique snowflakes!) But I think it's always useful to study successful archetypes.

The categories are not silos - imagine these like cell membranes: porous. Still, I hope this will provoke some discussion about what traits tend to clump together in filmmakers. Okay, that's said. I now present my first attempt at filmmaker phenotyping...

1. The Meticulous Master

In a word: Kubrick. This type of filmmaker is content to let a project sit on the backburner for years or perhaps never get made if it can't be done properly. Often criticized for coldness, nonetheless these filmmakers have cult followings who appreciate precision and fastidious detail. They are devoted to their art in a way that sometimes causes them to withdraw from society, become reclusive. Micro-managers, control-freaks, geniuses -- these filmmakers are like chess players who have already seen twelve moves ahead and are irritated that you can't see it too. Their films reward multiple viewings.

Others of the type: Terrence Malick, David Fincher, Wes Anderson, Paddy Chayefsky, Francis Ford Coppola, Alfred Hitchcock, Tim Burton, The Coen Brothers, Robert Bolt, David Lean, Walter Murch, David Mamet, Michael Haneke, Abbas Kairostami, Jean Renoir, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Christopher Nolan, P.T. Anderson, Akira Kurosawa, Tarsem Singh

2. The Prolific Pro

Everything this type of filmmaker does is part of a film. There is no wall of separation between life and filmmaking. They are always rolling the camera, or preparing to roll the camera. All of their own experiences are potential fodder for storytelling. They will switch genres, budget sizes, political parties -- whatever it takes to keep on making movies. Their personal obsessions leak into their films at every cranny. There's a strain of Prolific Pros who focus on creating whole worlds within a film, and sometimes the story is just an excuse to go and build this world in which they are a god. Another strain gets bored unless pushing the limits of the film medium itself, often testing the limits of audiences as well. Their films tend to be bipolar -- spectacular successes and massive failures. They believe in going big or going home.

Examples: Werner Herzog, Steven Soderbergh, Federico Fellini, Bob Fosse, Peter Jackson, Spike Jonez, Roman Polanski, John August, Tyler Perry, Spike Lee, Judd Apatow, Stanley Kramer, D.W. Griffith, Ridley Scott, Guillermo del Toro, Joe Wright, Lars von Trier, Ingmar Bergman, Gus Van Sant, Charlie Kaufman, David O. Russell

3. The Irrepressible Entertainer

This type of filmmaker is a populist. He or she just wants to tell you a good story - make you laugh, make you cry. While this type of filmmaker may pay great attention to detail, what separates The Entertainer from the Meticulous Master is that the only details that are emphasized are those that effect how the audience experiences the film emotionally -- or even just viscerally -- while other aspects of the film can be under-developed. If it doesn't goose the viewer immediately, it's not important. They can be dopamine fiends, addicted to excitement, getting their fix with an explosive climax. More darkly, many of the horror maven Entertainers see themselves as puppet-masters, orchestrating the breathing of the viewer, even the nightmares he or she will have when sleeping that night.

Examples: Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, Michael Bay, Preston Sturges, John Ford, Walt Disney, Jerry Bruckheimer, Ron Howard, Wes Craven, Jay Roach, Sam Spiegel, Daryl F. Zanuck, Cecil B. DeMille, Kathryn Bigelow, Ron Bass, Sam Peckinpah, Clint Eastwood, Zhang Yimou, Sidney Lumet

4. The Reverent Referentialist

Movie geek first and filmmaker second, these culture vultures know how to gobble up the history of cinema and regurgitate it back in stunning new forms. They view their own films from outside themselves, constructing them as if responses to a conversation consisting of films that have come before. The generous among them manage to give us a window on this conversation, introduce us politely to the great filmmakers of yesteryear who began it. Others simply expect audiences to be 'in the know' - using specific, obscure references that appeal to the secret film geek tribe, intentionally excluding the masses. Films don't have footnotes, but now that there are film schools and DVD bonus features, this type of filmmaker has been able to cross over to wider audiences.

Examples: Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Bernardo Bertolucci, George Lucas, Edgar Wright, Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut, Woody Allen, Sam Raimi, Zack Snyder, Kevin Smith

What kind of a filmmaker are you? What categories are missing? Who is sorted wrong? Leave a comment.

UPDATE: Thanks to the flood of comments from the IMDb readers (see below), I've added more filmmakers to these categories, and reclassified Kurosawa.

Image credits: Library of Congress LOOK Magazine Collection (PD), erinc salor (CC 2.0), Siebbi (CC 3.0), U.S. DoD (PD)

About J. Ott

John Ott is a writer, filmmaker and futurist. Follow him on Twitter, Facebook and Google+.

Filed under: Movie Making News Leave a comment

Comments (90) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

Lorenzo
May 4th, 2011 - 19:05

I guess I’m a Reverent Referentialist — Scorsese, Godard and Truffaut are among my favourites. I’m also a massive fan of David Lynch and Wong Kar Wai, but I’m not sure where I would catogorise them.
Darshan
May 4th, 2011 - 19:09

I haven’t quite formulated a premise, but I think I’d include a fifth type. And give me a little latitude here for laughter’s sake. I’d argue for a fifth, “spiritual filmmaker”. NOT a religious or dogmatic filmmaker. I think perhaps it’s even an emerging type of filmmaker still in its infancy. Filmmakers interested in telling challenging stories that speak to a growing audience, and not likely a populist, but more a humanist.

The first name that comes to my mind: Andrei Tarkovski for a large body of his work. Darren Aronofsky for films like The Fountain and Pi. Terrence Malick for The Thin Red Line, and I get the sense, Tree of Life. Expansively minded, humanist filmmakers not reductive filmmakers which is more the realm of the “faith-based” filmmaker.

Granted, each of these filmmakers you’ve already accounted for in your “four types”, largely in the “Meticulous Master” field, but as I’ve indicated, I think this is an emerging field, for an emerging human mytho-type. I’ve actually written previously on artists of this emerging type. You can google “New Era Artist Manifesto” and find other writings on my slightly dormant Signal>Noise blog.

Like I said, it’s a fluid idea, but definitely one that I think is an emerging type of filmmaker.

Thanks for the thought and inspiration!
T-Bell
May 4th, 2011 - 19:11

Where is Paul Thomas Anderson?!?
Cobb
May 4th, 2011 - 19:29

Nice Article. I would like to know where would you categorize Richard Linklater, Christopher Nolan and Alejandro Iñárritu ?
skiplittle
May 4th, 2011 - 20:29

i would throw kurosawa into the meticulous master category. but barely enough to say it.
Dan
May 4th, 2011 - 20:30

I would put Chaplin as a Meticulous Master.
chocolateislove
May 4th, 2011 - 20:36

I’d say Christopher Nolan would fall under The Meticulous Master. He’s already been compared to Kubrick with the “cold” directing style.
Muta
May 4th, 2011 - 20:45

What type of directors would exploitation and b-movie type directors be (Roger Corman, Ed Wood, Al Adamson, Russ Meyer ect ect).

And please don’t give some answer like “Bad Directors” LOL
E.Harris
May 4th, 2011 - 20:46

Great article.
Where would you put Danny Boyle under?

Stephen[sic] Spielberg…?
Dave L
May 4th, 2011 - 21:14

I am definitely “The Meticulous Master.” I tend to not settle for anything less than ‘perfection.’
frey
May 4th, 2011 - 21:28

kurosowa should be in the prolific pro category. its spielberg and lucas who misconstrued his style of filmmaking and turned it into crowd pleasing.
Paul
May 4th, 2011 - 21:53

Kurosawa should be in The Meticulous Master category, the man used to paint his own fucking storyboards by hand for god-sake.
vivek
May 4th, 2011 - 23:17

And chrispher nolan?????? You missed him…..!!!
Maggi
May 4th, 2011 - 23:19

What about David Lynch?
Dan Withrow
May 4th, 2011 - 23:21

Walt Disney could be a double entry in both the entertainer and meticulous master. Especially in the early years of Walt Disney Animated Studios, Walt had his hands in almost every aspect of production from start to finish, and he never released a piece either short or long that he wasn’t proud of.

A case could also be made for James Cameron as a meticulous master. Not because he is on the same page as Kubrick or Hitchcock, but because he too makes sure that everything is right and if the film can’t be made properly (i.e. Avatar), he will wait. I do agree that he is an entertainer first.
Zack
May 5th, 2011 - 00:16

Where would you categorize Robert Rodriguez, Terry Gilliam, Paul Thomas Anderson & Darren Anorofsky?
Cobb
May 5th, 2011 - 05:16

Nice Article. May I know where would you categorize Christopher Nolan and Alejandro Inarritu?
Arjuna
May 5th, 2011 - 09:57

I see you didn’t put Christopher Nolan in any catagory, where would you place him, post Inception.
J. Ott
May 5th, 2011 - 12:50

@Arjuna,

I haven’t seen any Christopher Nolan post-Inception movies

On the basis of Memento, The Prestige and Inception, I’d definitely classify him as a Meticulous Master. The Batman movies are more populist, although there were some cerebral, philosophical elements to Dark Knight.
J. Ott
May 5th, 2011 - 12:52

@Cobb,

Iñárritu is definitely a prolific pro. He favors grand, sprawling narratives and more ‘in the moment’ type of shooting as opposed to precision imagery. See my response to Arjuna about Nolan.
J. Ott
May 5th, 2011 - 13:02

@Zack,

Rodriguez – Entertainer
Gilliam – Prolific Pro
PT Anderson – Meticulous Master
Aronofsky – Prolific Pro – probably…
J. Ott
May 5th, 2011 - 13:03

@Maggi,

David Lynch has elements of a lot of these but I’d say he’s gone from more Meticulous Master to Prolific Pro in recent years.
J. Ott
May 5th, 2011 - 13:05

@E.Harris

Boyle is definitely concerned with audience emotion now. He’s still got a bit of an experimental streak, but probably would put him in the Entertainer category.
J. Ott
May 5th, 2011 - 13:08

@Muta,

I don’t think exploitation movie directors are bad if they make great movies within that genre. I don’t know the filmographies of the directors you list well enough to comment on them, but Peckinpah, for example, seems to focus on visceral audience experiences like many other filmmakers in the Irrepressible Entertainer category. I imagine other great exploitation artists are the same.
J. Ott
May 5th, 2011 - 13:10

@Cobb,

Linklater seems to be a prolific pro. The other two I just addressed in other comment replies.
J. Ott
May 5th, 2011 - 13:11

@Lorenzo,

I’d put Kar Wai and early Lynch in the Meticulous Master categories.
J. Ott
May 5th, 2011 - 13:12

@Darshan
Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, it seems these categories still need developing and defining. A lot of filmmakers seem to move between two or more of these types still.
J. Ott
May 5th, 2011 - 13:13

@Mike re: Altman,

Prolific Pro, maybe? He can also be Meticulous in his own way.
J. Ott
May 5th, 2011 - 13:16

@Chad,

Mann is one of those that’s hard to categorize. He experiments and entertains but I guess I think of him more as a Meticulous type in the end.
J. Ott
May 5th, 2011 - 13:26

@Jane,

Haha. Oops. Good catch. And I misspelled it on Soderbergh as well. Fixed now. Thanks!
M
May 5th, 2011 - 14:10

Michael Bay should have a category all by himself.
mike tarigan
May 7th, 2011 - 14:35

I guess I’m a follower of Meticulous Master. But where does Mike Leigh fall into?
R
May 8th, 2011 - 09:21

I request a placement for Almodovar.
Tallsonofagun
May 8th, 2011 - 15:32

Ummm. Ang Lee anyone? Seriously, no mention of him.

Probably fits #2 the best, but could qualify with 1 and 3 as well (absolutely prolific though: drama, western, comedy, hippy biography, Chinese sexual melodrama, gay western, martial arts action, English period piece, food based allegory, superhero fantasy, foreign gay romantic comedy, historical lifestyle, etc.). For me, the best director working today with the widest range of themes of the last 20 years of any director. Has anyone done as many different types of films as him – and have they been so consistently successful?
J. Ott
May 8th, 2011 - 21:20

@mike tarigan,

Probably would put Mike Leigh under Prolific Pro, since his method of building films is more organic and open to improvisation.

@Tallonsofagun,

You’re right Ang Lee is hard to categorize. And don’t count out #4, since he has a strong respect for the grammar of the genres in which he works.
J. Ott
May 8th, 2011 - 21:21

@R,

Almódovar is a Reverent Referentialist with Meticulous Master elements.
Phanindra Narsetti
May 10th, 2011 - 09:22

jean pierre jeunet?
JP Ward
May 13th, 2011 - 03:19

The flip side of the Irrepressible Entertainer is a strain of filmmaker I call the “ProvocAuteur”. The ProvocAuteur specializes in subjecting his audience to films that are Endurance Tests.

Examples: Michael Haneke, Gaspar Noe, Lars Von Trier.

The ProvocAuteur often assumes an air of moral superiority; sometimes against the general moviegoing public, sometimes against his own arthouse audiences. Some are agenda driven, others simply use provocation as their means of self expression.

[I just corrected a Freudian slip/typo. I'd accidentally typed "Irreversible Entertainer" in my opening sentence.]
Ric
March 29th, 2012 - 02:10

What would you consider Cronenberg?
Sathish
May 9th, 2012 - 13:44

The Meticulous Master – I want to be a Terrence Malick, David Fincher, Christopher Nolan