Live Poll: Which Kind of Director Would You Be?

@cinephile Wow! Thank you for giving this insight. I understand your questions. I can tell you - it's not about your abilities more like of your mentallity. Because I guess that most users hadn't studied directing and also do not have the connections to movie business, nor the money or experience to make pretty good multi-million Dollar movies that don't suck. I couldn't either. It's more like go inside and feel which director is the most familiar with your own inner paradise or demons. I could also have asked: If you were reborn as a director, which kind of those directors would fit the most. ;) But I didn't want to open an trancendency workshop here. ;) Thank you for asking.

Or simply, if you were a successful director like how of them would you be? Not what you like, what you are!

Please don't be too analytic. "To scare the audience is my joy, I'd do that with a favor." That's just a sentence how one of the audience might think James Wan would state his work. The whole thing is a though game (what if ...) With the sentences I put the directors in their mouth's, I assemble the most prior qualities of the directors in one short sentence or a few short sentences. For let it look more natural, I add sentences like I did by James Wan to confirm it, but and that's the trick, the sentences is not really stated by the director, it's what the voter thinks about. That's what he clicks.

"Please don't be so analytic." This is a telling and awkward turn of written English phrasing. It's not a question of being nitpicky. It's a question of weak English phrasing. "I'd do that with a favor." I'm sure it doesn't mean in English what you think it means in your native tongue. You have a fondness for what I assume in taking idioms from your native tongue and translating them directly (and often not so well) into English where they often don't make any sense. I'm not critiquing your list choices but the literal attempts at their English descriptors.

@Tsarstepan I see you have some suggestions. It is surely ok to put Tim Burton or Wes Anderson on the list. Maybe you want to make up a line for each one? Cameron: Documentaries are essential for James Cameron. He did so many Blockbusters to have the financial background for scientific deepwater research. That's an expensive hobby, diving down 3800 meters in a yellow submarine.

@Tsarstepan What about suggestions to do better? Give me some examples, please.

Just randomly spitballing here. Werner Herzog for documentaries (heck even science documentaries. He's done far more science documentaries than Cameron): You want to document our weird world we live in but with a spiritual flair. Under Michael Moore: You're principled yet mischievous and need to scratch that political itch to make deep-diving, muckraking, political documentaries. Under Wes Anderson: You want to create unique and colorful indie flicks constructed with your meticulous aesthetic sensibilities. Under Tim Burton: Your gothic sensibilities will bleed into your cinematic visions. Your weird creations will be cosmically and comically dark. Under Hayao Miyazaki: You want to weave gorgeous humanist fairy tales that astound, emotionally hug, and morally strengthen their respective viewers.

Thank you for the suggestions. :D It's right, when you remind me on my lack of English skills, but just pickin' on is not really helpful. I tried to subscribe in other words for what I've got no phrase or better words. But as I see, your words to the directors are very near, so your suggestions are useful. I would rather turn it into the I form, as the voters are asked for, if I may. And then later I'll try to find better phrases for the other options. Thank you Tsarstepan, that was pretty helpful. :D

@Tsarstepan I've put it on the list, please look at it. That really comes next to my idea.

@jeorj_euler I've put in the "Spoofs, spoofs, spoofs!"-line. :D About Kubrick: To the point! ;)

@BonaFideBOSS Thank you, Bo! :D

Much artistic license in fantasy recounting of historical/biopic events.

@jeorje_euler For Tarantino? That would fit for him. He is brutal and tells former historical events in a todays light on it. His stories are all "what if?", surely not "Exact! So it was!" But that's his cup of meat. He takes stereotypes of an era and plays with them. His art is to catch the moment and charge it with the power of dialogues, like Bo described. If I want an evening full of brutal suspense by fanatsized situations, I'D pick Tarantino. If I want to see the real light on a historical event, I'd better pick Ron Howard or Spielberg.

@BonaFideBOSS I'll do. Can you get a little more specific, please? In which way did he change the way of the Bollywood filmindustrie. Did he break rules or taboos? Did he have such a unique style that others followed? What was it exact? I ask so deep, because there were other directors that did the same. E.G. Cameron and 3D. After his 'Avatar' all movies had to be 3D for about 10 years! ;)

What about Gaspar Noé?

Nice mention. I don't know. I've only seen Irreversible and Enter the Void, the former of which is bleak and disturbing but not in a horrifying way. I don't recall connivance, captivity, dehumanization, brainwashing, trafficking, torture, mutilation, murder and cannibalism, or organ harvesting, with mass burial, being in those particular two. But then again, I don't think I've seen anything that has check marks in all those boxes, let alone a filmmaker who revisits the topic.

woah! jeorj! That is really mean stuff. Even if there is such a director, how many people would you think would click such an option? I surely wouldn't. But I remember one thing! I've heard of the movie 'Human Centipede', which I've never seen, because just the subject makes me feel sick. The director is (according to IMDb) Tom Six. On the other hand, the 'Hostel' movie series of Eli Roth are pretty sick, too. I'm glad that this could not be shown uncut in G. And one Candidat: Martin Weisz. He did the movie 'Rohtenburg', which tells about the circumstances of the real Cannibal of Rothenburg, Armin Meiwes and his Victim. After (I guess it was) 25 minutes I stopped it, because it was unbearable. I don't know, if he did further movies like that. But I won't watch that twice! (the twist of t and h in the title is normal).

I'm not sure, if want such an option, but for the sake of neutrality I would put it on the list.

Got your guy! It's Dino Velvet, Tom Welles found him in 8mm.

The Human Centipede movies are absolutely disgusting with lots of gratuitous violence and gore, yes. I didn't even get around to watching the third movie in the series. I've wondered what kind of mind could even think up the premise for these movies and actually go through the work to implement the depiction. Hostel is also very horrifying with much gratuitous violence and gore. I've only watched the first one, thus far. Rohtenburg, on the other hand, I've never heard of that one. Some of these violent story elements belong off-screen, depending on the basic theme and pace of a movie. I like how Michael Haneke non-humorously vaguely satirized the typical horror/thriller movie by making Funny Games. Alas, I've only seen a small portion of his work. He has a way of creating a horrifying atmosphere without many graphic visuals. Some filmmakers are slick, though, as they will place most of the horrific stuff toward the end of their movies, after the audience has gotten invested in the story or simply the movie's opening trend of visuals in the more suggestive vein.

But jeorj ... Michael Haneke is a real good director. I don't know if I get it right and exact in English: About 'Funny Games' he said something that he didn't make it for sane people. He wanted to set an counterpoint to the widely easy consumeable violence in media. I remember an Interview in which he said, that he likes the people that leave 'Funny Games' after quarter an hour. The absolutely insane thing is, that the Americans were totally crazy about that movie, so Haneke redirected the same contents 1:1 again with American actors for lipsynchronity for the American audience. Please watch some other movies of Haneke. He really had some very much more interesting things like 'The White Ribon' or 'Armour'. You will see, he isn't like in 'Funny Games' all the time. He has much more to tell than that! I wouldn't judge him just on 'Funny Games', which clearly is an intentional sick movie. ;)

'Rohtenburg' is an absolutely to close to truth drawn movie about Armin Meiwes. He's a cannibal and computer technician of a bigger company who searched contact to the diploma engineer Bernd Jürgen Brandes. The case was in the newspapers over sevral months. They both together ate the penis of Brandes before he died on the heavy loss of blood. It was the first time, such a case in all it's sick facets was brought to a court of law in Germany. Since killing on demand is only judged with a maximum of 8 years, Meiwes would be free in 2017. But there is no positive prognosis yet, so he stays in Prison. The movie is only worth to watch in case of professional interest. I'm glad that they banned it meanwhile.

That one remark: Got your guy! It's Dino Velvet, Tom Welles found him in 8mm. What a lovely sense of humor! On Haneke, I've not seen The White Ribbon, and to me, it seems hard to find, but definitely on my radar. What I have seen is Benny's Video and The Piano Teacher. So, what I know of Haneke's style is limited to four of his movies depicting at least a few insufferable fictional characters.

As for Amour, I hadn't yet seen it when I last posted. Like with Haneke's other work, the film carries an important message, but also like the other work, it is tantamount to a depiction of agony, and audiences may tend feel that agony. Seeing Amour caused me to wonder what could I do to avoid being handicapped in old age or at all for that matter; meaning that, depending on the exact circumstances, death ought to occur before I get irreversibly sick; in other words, so as not to be faced with the Kevorkian question. By the way, The scenes with the pigeon were amazing, from a technical standpoint. I don't how the film crew managed to pull that one off.

I think that Haneke tries to show up why people kill. Benny's video has a real mean story. I think the best movie of Haneke is 'Armour'. Should be 'Love' in America.

I think that Haneke tries to show up why people kill. I'm not sure that it is best way to describe it. I think that his point is to engage the viewer in reflections and he does so like one of his masters (Pier Paolo Pasolini) by making them as provocative as he needs them to be. In this interview: MICHAEL HANEKE on VIOLENCE - cine-fils.com - YouTube He says that he once said to Isabelle Huppert: "The ideal scene should force the spectator to look away". I believe that he uses long takes, erotic scenes, and violent scenes for that purpose. But, as he explains there: https://youtu.be/EPtWbkzXGe4, he also wants to make them on "the highest aesthetical level". I have only seen Code Unknown, but so far, it confirms that theory. The film isn't graphic and doesn't deal with death. Yet, it depicts racism and child abuse in a grim and hard-to-watch fashion. That is because he uses some techniques described in the linked videos. For example, the film uses the techniques shared in the "violence" video in the first scene and in the metro scene. That is what he says himself about his goal: A filmmaker can reach that also in the description of psychological processes. By showing or just not showing certain situations you can make a film unbearable for the audience. If you reach this, your film will be more than just consumed. I don't want to say that I do not enjoy to consume good entertainment. But I really think that it depends on your topic whether the film should be consumable or not. And if you want to talk about a problematic topic, the film itself should do justice to that. Again, it is in the same video: MICHAEL HANEKE on VIOLENCE - cine-fils.com - YouTube.

Cinephile: Thank you for that very good contribution. That's all absolutely correct. What you write is totally correct. It is, what I see when I watch his movies. One of the few movies from Haneke I didn't see is 'Code Unknown'. But it doesn't mean that I'm wrong with meaning on him. Maybe it's better to re-edit the option text. But what I clearly see in the movies he did, his thought's are clearly centred about people killing other people. Sometimes not without a little moral justifiabilty, sometimes senseless. Yes he forces the user to reflect, but in the one or the other way. To get this into one or two good sentence would be good. :D Maybe you got a suggestion? Your welcome.

I've been thinking about this whole "type" thing, and I might just possibly be a lazy director who relies upon screenwriters, actors, cinematographers, producers, editors et al. to carry the project. Hahaha. On the matter of bringing scripts that deal with uncomfortable subject material to life, I can see how it the process of watching a finished product or the corresponding behind the scenes is astoundingly simpler than leading the direction of individual scenes that have to be grim despite the cast and crew possibly having fun with it behind the scenes or between takes. In some cases, it won't even be possible for the aspect behind the scenes to be fun, especially if intense method acting is involved.

@Brijesh Thank you, Brijesh! Very good suggestion. I allowed myself to pick Chaplin. I think he is way more sympathetic. ;D

@dan_dassow Thank you, Dan. Ed Wood is on the list now.

Breumaster, Thanks.

Thank you, Karen. I know John Ford is an absolut genius director. But I already reached 25 directors. Thank you. :D

@Peter_pbn Corrected all. #9 now is: Dramas about racism.

@dan_dassow Thank you Dan, thank you guys. It's a good pick for my 100th poll ! :D