Saw "The Mule" last week, got very mixed reviews for being so loosly filmed. More like a TV movie in terms of feel, but considering Eastwood is 88 now, pretty remarkable. As a director, he is very sparing with direction, preferring to hire great actors and simply film their first or (rarely) second take, which gives it a slightly raw emotional quality. Tom Hanks won the Oscars for "Sully", and Eastwood did the presenting. As Eastwood walked off, Hanks joked, "that was more than he talked with me during filming."
I had a five year stretch where I made non theatrical films back in the 60s, and it is very hard to get what you want on film. Many actors just can't carry it off on the first take. Gene Hackman is one of those who can, often refusing to do multiple takes when he feels his performance was peak in the last take. The director then shoots closeups, reaction shots of the other actors to cover their glithes. I had a friend in HS who owned an Arriflex and went later to film school. Caught my interest then, but making films is exhausting, the cost per hour is daunting, and the director works 20 hours a day to get it done, all the while with producers breathing down their necks. Eastwood doesn't have to put up with that anymore. Same crew every time, a cameraman who knows what he wants and does it on his own.
I do love films.
The more I do, the less I accomplish.