Clint Eastwood has technically been one of the most in-demand movie stars of the last 60 years -- "technically" because, throughout that long time span, he slowly ceased working with other directors. Starting in 1980, Eastwood almost exclusively made movies through his Malpaso Company shingle at Warner Bros., and that tendency functioned like a flashing "do not inquire" sign. Obviously, if filmmakers had any sense that Eastwood was on the market as an actor, a considerable number would've at least passed along a screenplay to gauge interest. But he seemed content to generate his own material and direct it himself.

It's intriguing to consider who would've had the best shot at getting Eastwood to take a break from the Malpaso ranch (I bet Tony Scott could've nabbed him in the 1990s), but the better question is who would Eastwood have worked with if he felt like being directed for a change. The one time he truly stepped outside of his Malpaso comfort zone, he made one of his best post-"Unforgiven" movies with Wolfgang Petersen's "In the Line of Fire." With that in mind, you have to figure Eastwood had a preference for accomplished directors with a modicum of style but not an overwhelming artistic imprint.

This wasn't the case at all. Not by a damn sight. Had the stars aligned, Eastwood would've happily teamed up with one of the most idiosyncratic craftspeople to ever stand behind a camera.