Here we have a case for modern filmmakers whose footprint is so profound that they've affected the manner in which even stock footage is filmed. Shutterstock has compiled a tribute to these filmmakers using only its own library:
Watching this on a phone, it's tough to tell that the Anderson footage isn't actual Anderson footage; the digital nature stands out on a large screen, but the speed-ramping, dead-center framing, and 1960s aesthetics are all there, and it's all stuff that would never show up in stock footage without his work.
Fincher's section is also accurate, despite being more subtle than the sledgehammer that is Anderson's aesthetic. The noir backlighting, the love for gritty, steam-pipe urban imagery, iconic graphic designs overlaid on the footage as a storytelling device... This is Fincher's fingerprint on the way we're shooting stock footage now.
The rest is more arguable. Tarantino's tribute is certainly stuff we'd never see in modern stock footage without the existence of his films, but it's also a testament to filmmakers missing the point of his style entirely. Digital blood? That's blasphemy. Plus, the aspect ratio is all wrong; it's not guns and whisky that make a Western, it's the 2:35:1 aspect ratio. Why does that blood look like wine instead of clotting gel? But it makes a point: Tarantino has packaged pulp and put a bow on it, and it's why stock footage libraries now have neon signs, lipstick, blood, and briefcases filled with cash in them.
The Alfonso Cuarón stuff is a stretch. It's all space footage, and since Cuarón studied stock space footage in the first place to craft the look of Gravity, the logic that he affected this stuff doesn't quite hold. In defense of the video, it's not quite long to include a shot that would truly represent his impact.
And the Terrence Malick portion. Much of it is less Malick and more camera-lens-test-on-Vimeo. But, there's a shot here following a girl with outstretched hands in a wheat field via a swaying Steadicam, and if you forget Malick's name, you can say "um, that guy that follows people in wheat fields with swaying Steadicams" and still effectively get your point across. So touché, Shutterstock.
What do you think? It's really not possible to argue the Anderson stuff, but are any of the others hat-tipping in the wrong direction? Or is it solid proof that these directors have now effectively changed the way that we shoot absolutely anything and everything?
H/T Shutterstock | Screengrab via Vimeo