Other directors whose names are (or should be) adjectives

When David Lynch passed earlier this year, I described him as the man whose name became an adjective. That was suggesting a sort of exclusivity that may not actually exist. Lynch may have been on the leading edge of that trend, but there are plenty of other directors whose names we use that way -- or might, based on a couple criteria:

1) They have something very distinctive about the sorts of movies they make in either approach or subject matter, which might lead us to name drop them when we see another movie with those characteristics by some other director;

2) They have to be well enough known that you recognize their name when you weren't necessarily expecting it to come up, and when that name is turned into an adjective;

3) Their name can actually be turned into an adjective with reasonable ease.

It's that last one that helps us narrow down our list a bit. You might think that a particular movie bears the traits of a film made by Francis Ford Coppola, for example -- though Coppola has made different enough movies that he might actually fail the first test -- but "Coppolaian" or "Coppolan" just do not work as adjectives. They don't pass the sniff test. Quentin Tarantino has the same problem, though I'd argue you might break the rules a little bit and come up with a word like "Tarantonian" just to get around it. (And I think maybe some actually have. In fact, I think I have used that word before.)

On Wednesday night I watched a movie by a director who definitely does qualify in at least two of the three respects -- to be honest, I didn't think of the one I've listed as #2 until after I started writing -- which was the inspiration for this post. And after talking about him, I'll get into some others that I think we either use or should use. 

The movie was Fireworks Wednesday, the oldest movie I've seen in the directing career of Iranian master Asghar Farhadi, and seventh overall that I've seen. I've seen the last seven now -- in reverse order, that's A Hero, Everybody Knows, The Salesman, The Past, A Separation, About Elly and Fireworks Wednesday, taking us back to 2006 -- leaving only two other features I haven't seen: Beautiful City (2004) and Dancing in the Dust (2003). 

I wasn't sure at what point he found his particular voice, which I will expound on in a moment, so I thought this film from 19 years ago might be in the vein of other Iranian masters whose names you would know, like Jafar Panahi and Abbas Kiarostami, though both of those directors have films that are replete with formal challenges, while Farhadi's are not. Or maybe I just thought it would be more like the most common form of Iranian film, by any director, that we saw in this period, in which children were often the stars as a way of avoiding the scorn and potential censorship and/or retribution of the government. 

Nope. Even in Fireworks Wednesday, Farhadi was making intricate social dramas that play more like mysteries, where semantic disagreements and misunderstandings among characters lead to escalating consequences that result in (usually minor) tragedies for everyone involved. Simply put, this was Farhadi's dominant mode in all the movies listed above that I've seen -- you might say it was his only mode if that didn't sound like a criticism. With a filmmaker like Farhadi, we cherish each new instance of this and would not ask him to vary up his style in the slightest. 

So I think "Farhadian" is an adjective that should definitely enter our vernacular among cinephiles ... and even more so if there were a significant number of other directors making films like the films he makes. (Though it's possible that only in cinephile circles would his name be recognized completely out of context ... which is why I said I'm not sure if he meets criterion #2.)

Who else we got?

1) Hitchcockian - Films like this feature clever narrative suspense, interesting camera tricks, ordinary people out of their depth and possibly a cameo by the director. 

2) Spielbergian - Films like this feature a sense of childhood wonder, often set in and around suburbia, which is endangered by the mysteries of our world (or others), often supernatural in nature. 

3) Andersonian - Films like this feature a quirky ensemble of characters, often against lovingly fussy sets and backdrops, usually involving some sort of Russian nesting doll narrative structure. (Note: There is a slight risk of confusing Wes and Paul Thomas, but context should usually help sort that out -- and it also means Paul Thomas has to give up his claim to having an adjectival name, because he is just not as distinctive in style as Wes.)

4) Scorsesian - Films like this are epic in length, showcase audacious camera technique, use classic rock in memorable ways, and contain organizational infrastructures that either are, or resemble, organized crime.

5) Kaufmanian - Films like this involve a no-confidence schlub as a protagonist and likely a deconstruction of the ordinary rules of filmmaking and/or narrative structure, with an emphasis on the self. 

6) Gondrian - Films like this feature a lot of DIY technique involving construction paper or the equivalent, and often a bit of dream logic.

7) Fincherian - Films like this involve sleek camerawork and editing, and look into the darker parts of our souls. 

8) Hughesian - Films like this involve teenagers coming of age in situations usually involving high comedy (context helps for this one). 

9) Von Trierian - Films like this involve masochism and possibly mild to heavy misogyny. 

10) Shyamalanian - Films like this feature a labored twist, a high concept, some amount of horror ... and possibly a cameo by the director. 

I could keep going, but the adjectives might get more obscure and ten is a good place to stop. 

I'd like to include someone like Robert Altman for his very distinctive style and subject matter, and "Altmanian" does sort of work as an adjective ... but I just don't think I could ever see myself using it. You just know if it works or if it does not work. I think "Burtonian" has the same problem. (Which is probably why I didn't think of this post idea a few nights earlier, when I rewatched Edward Scissorhands for the first time in a quarter century.)

I also thought of Orson Welles, and "Wellesian" certainly does work ... but I don't know that I could focus in on a signature Welles style that would warrant the use of the adjective.

In fact we may have more examples of directors (or directing duos) with distinctive styles who don't work than who do. "Bergmanian" and "Coenian" also don't work, though we would absolutely want to use those adjectives if we could. Single-syllable last names often don't work. Just try "Croweian" or "Leeian" and you will see what I'm talking about. Then again, David Lynch has a one-syllable last name. Or, had. 

Overall I guess it is a select group that meet all three criteria, possibly not including the actual inspiration for the post. So while in many cases, we might still be inclined to make the comparison when writing about film, but we are more likely to have to use the more ungainly phrasing "it resembles the films of Joel and Ethan Coen" than that it is "Coenian."