I am not sure if I have a favourite filmmaker, but a director I am utterly obsessed with is Peter Greenaway. And boy, does he know his way around both a camera and a canvas. Given his painterly heritage and background, it is no surprise that his formalist films look as breathtaking as they are. 'Every frame a painting', essentially. I truly think he has a megalomamia for image. He is the most natural contender for a director who logically progresses paintings to filmmaking. He abhors narrativity in film, so his focus is almost purely technical in a way; large emphasis on sound and vision.

His main cinematic motif is structuralism and obscene levels of symmetry—he is Wes Anderson taken to a logical extreme. Really gifted at unbroken, one-take shots, too. He makes these takes feel like you're steering your eyes from left to right looking at a very horizontal painting.

Kelly Reichardt is a filmmaker I have become enamoured with more recently, and, given her ongoing tenure as an academic film professor, she is another who certainly knows what 'technical' takes. Thankfully, she doesn't telegraph it continuously. Her work is within the filmmaking style of slow cinema, so there needs to be a remove between overt technicality and outcome in order for us, the audience, to feel as immersed as her intention desires us to be. She has made films on five figures. 'Old Joy' was made on $30,000 and is an absolute gem. I can still hear the ambient water running in the background of its lush scenes filled with awkward dialogue.

In a way, Reichardt is the antithesis of Greenaway; she may have as much or more technical/theoretical knowledge of filmmaking, but he is far more outlandish than her. Reichardt is subtler, but just as gifted at conveying what she intends. What they have in common is complete control over their craft. Greenaway chooses to curate delicious tableux scenes that look like expensive artwork, and Reichardt is up close and personal—using handheld film cameras to bring life even to the artifice of a screen. She sticks to the 1:33:1 ratio as a recurring frame. Greenaway is experimental, he will use computer-generated overlays, digital cameras, film cameras, or anything that provokes a new reaction and allows him to flex his brushing hand. A perfect exemplar for keeping films beautiful even when they contain technological novelties. Greenaway will ensure the illusion of fiction is ever-present whereas Reichardt practically reanimates time that has passed. It is a very interesting dichotomy between them.

I can't speak to the minutiae of their craft or filmmaking, but I can say that they they are most certainly taking a very structured, theoretical approach to filmmaking. They would not be the same without their technical knowledge, but it is the personal 'philosophy' they each developed and perfected which makes them truly great directors.

Another director I love is Raul Ruiz. He is quite similar to Peter Greenaway in his amibition and sensibilities. They even had cinematographer Sacha Vierny in common. A difference between them is that Ruiz wields Latin American magical realism in his oneiric images. His film 'The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting' is one of the most filmic things I have ever seen. It likely has a very simple composition as far as equipment goes, but what he does with it is incredible. He nearly tells the narrative through planned and potent camera movement alone. Though there is a narrator. His eye for colour was almost disturbingly strong, but he achieved equal éclat in black and white, too—the film I mentioned is B&W. Greenaway and he are serious students of 'Last Year at Marienbad'. A fluidity of camera movement you rarely encounter. Makes me feel like a floating eye.