I consider HH one of the all-time best directors-he was very good technically, and always did a masterful job of framing his scenes.
I am partial to film noir, so a lot of his work fits into my all time favorites.
What I would like to discuss-how would he compare to modern directors (like Mary Scorcese)? Would his style be considered too old fashioned?
What modern director (in your opinion) comes closest to his style?
Hawks’s style would work just fine today – it’s pretty much what’s used on TV. About the only real difference is the lack of quick cuts.
Hawks was not a “stylistic” director. He went for simple framing shots as much as possible. What made him great was how he directed his actors and how he told a story. There are few directors today (or in any other era) who were his equal in storytelling, and no one surpasses him for the snap and speed which he tells a story (action may be quicker, but the films always unfold more leisurely). He was also good at getting a wide range of performances – from subtle to broad – that fit the film.
Also, remember that Hawks was not considered an important director until around the 1950s. It was the auteurist movement that elevated him to one of the greatest film directors, mostly because they realized that not calling attention to your style could be a style itself.
I echo what Reality Chuck said.
One area that would be difficult to assess is gender roles in Hawks. In many ways, he was extraordinarily liberal – the male-swimsuit scene in GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES, the strong assertive females in HATARI and the westerns. In other ways, he was very traditional, his groups and focus is almost always white males, the strong assertive females are often seen as comic reversals (especially when up against John Wayne, say.)
He had a wide range.
Lot of people don’t know he directed (helped direct?) The Thing from Another World. He didn’t accept a formal credit for directing or writing the film. The Thing is one of the better 50’s sci-fi films.
Hawks excelled with comedies, noir, westerns, war films, musicals, sci-fi, and adventure films. You’d be very hard-pressed to find someone so prolific these days, especially since he doesn’t have so much a “style” as he does a “tone”. While his films are all impeccably assembled, they’re low on flash and high on economy, character dynamics, and the less-is-more school of thought. It’d be tempting to compare him to Ridley Scott, but Scott is too enamored with visuals and has too heavy a touch. Maybe a Fincher or Demme might compare, but that’s still a bit of a stretch.
To be honest, the closest I can think of as a contemporary director is Clint Eastwood. Very no-nonsense, gives actors plenty of breathing room to dig into their roles, and while the war movies and westerns get the most attention, he’s done thrillers, romances, musicals, sci-fi, and character or period dramas. The one conspicuous miss is an out-and-out comedy as director, which may be why Hawks still remains in a league of his own.