Okay this is excellent. Being able to link directly to the individual pages from the master list is a superb feature. Now you just need to bump Kurosawa 10 or 11 spots up the list and it’ll be perfect!
@Matt Harris– haha– yeah the links are a new thing here so bear with me on this continual work in progress. I have a few films to go to finish up the study but it does feel inevitable he’ll jump up when I reappraise the list.
Great list Drake! Is this the exact same list as before (when you used to release singular director pages) or did you make some slight changes? It looks pretty similar. Anyways. Great job!
Is it difficult to set up? Ideally the next level would be to be able to link to your individual film reviews from the director or actor pages, but I have no notion of how much work that would entail.
@Azman
I think I’ve stated here that Kurosawa is my choice for #1. I have no problem with anyone opting for one of Drake’s current top 2 though.
@Matt Harris– it isn’t difficult once I messed around with it. It’s just busywork– this was just hours today not reading or writing about cinema or looking for screenshots or anything fun like that. I’m going to start linking more often moving forward. There are just 1500 pages now so the idea of going back and doing it doesn’t exactly appeal. I’ll start updating the year by year archives with hyperlinks to the films though as I go.
No love for Tarkovsky?
Actually i thought that the ideal would be, linking in the top 500 reviews them, although i think there are not many, take a look at the top 100 and so far i have found 43.
Is there any other director besides Scorsese and PTA who has reviews for all his filmography?
Everyone he’s done a study of since launching the site. Ozu, Tarantino, Corbucci, etc. Soon Kurosawa and Fuller. Well all the archivable filmography anyway.
@Aldo– is the Tarkovsky comment for me? There are other directors with their entire filmography covered with reviews here for sure. Some of them just have a lot less films (Steve McQueen for example).
It was actually for @Matt Harris, but i forgot to mention it.
I hope you have seen my comment on Kalazatov’s page, on the YouTube channel where I am cuba is, there are other movies of him, hopefully they are good.
My list wouldn’t differ tremendously from Drake’s. I think GOAT status can be a little more clearly established for directors than for individual films, so I wouldn’t travel too far down that list before I’d have a problem with ranking someone higher than the three I listed.
As for the current directors… I could list so many put I’ll pare it down to the bare bones. Scorsese is the greatest living. PTA, Tarantino, Cuaron, Nolan are the greatest current. Malick, Lynch, Wong, Tarr, Coens are the greatest to emerge between those two epochs. Chazelle and Aster are the young guns that most excite me going forward. And I’m sure I forgot someone essential that I’ll kick myself for later.
Amazing! This really is much better than I envisaged. Gosh it puts things into perspective. Despite reading his page, PTA might be the most revelatory of the lot. Still, seeing names like Wong, Malick, the Coens, Jarmusch right alongside or above Dreyer, Ophuls, Visconti and Mizoguchi really shows your objectivity in ranking. Love it!
I feel I should have said this first, but the hyperlinks are fantastic. I’m raring to dive into the 75-150 directors’ pages haha.
I find the absence of Frank Darabont to be completely inexcusable. To me, The Shawshank Redemption has some really wonderful camerawork. You have it graded as only a Must-See, but there are some cinematically transcendent moments that stand out as masterpiece-worthy to me, such as the scene with the music on the speakers, and the famous escape sequence. Its narrative and screenplay are in the conversation with the best of all time, and Darabont is able to capture all of the necessary emotion.
And that isn’t his only well-acclaimed film: he also did The Green Mile.
@Graham– thanks for the comment. Completely inexcusable huh? I mean Shawshank is superb- and very well directed. Just out of curiosity, who are you moving off this list to make way for Darabont? I had him on my list here- just didn’t quite make the cut in the top 250.
Okay, I will agree “completely inexcusable” was a bit harsh. It was just very surprising for me that I didn’t see his name.
I am not nearly as knowledgeable about film as you, and I have not heard of a lot of the directors on the list, so I cannot say which ones exactly I am moving. I simply feel that of all the good movies I have seen, The Shawshank Redemption seems to stand out as superb filmmaking. I am not the only one who believes this; it is the number one IMDb movie, for starters.
@Graham — thanks again for the comment. Darabont would be somewhere between 250-300 if I kept going (and I do at some point). I’ll have to admit I do not pay much attention to the IMDB list. This is another really good list here worth sharing- http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top250directors.htm – I’m not saying this is gospel truth (nor is my own list of course) but they also don’t have a spot for Darabont. There are just a lot of great directors out there.
There’s a few in the lower sections of the list that would not make my own. I’d take an Adam McKay, Alex Garland, or Ben Affleck over Tom Hooper, Bennett Miller, or Kenneth Lonergan for instance, but I’m not that interested in arguing at the margins of a tremendous list.
If I were to make any “inexcusible” claims it certainly wouldn’t be for Darabont. Not when Tsai Ming-Liang, Kim Ki-Duk, and Raoul Ruiz are nowhere to be seen. But lists evolve and what we have here is pretty much as good a resource as there is. I’m not about to start making demands… other than Kurosawa jumping up of course. 😉
@Matt Harris- thanks for the comment- appreciate the praise — and I like that you offer some suggestions for those you’d swap. Some I’ve seen the work and they just didn’t quite cut it (like McKay, Garland, Affleck)– McKay and Garland were very close- I hadn’t really considered Affleck but maybe I should (I do love those helicopter shots). And others (Tsai Ming-Liang, Kim Ki-Duk, and Raoul Ruiz) I have work to do yet studying their films before I could put them on.
Since we are with objections haha, i was surprised not to have seen Parajanov have The Color of Pomegranates HR and Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors HR / MS, i have not seen any of them, but the images in the reviews are that exquisite, they certainly have surrealism in common.
What a great list and what a great feature for the site. Can’t even imagine how much work went into this. So many people to check out and get familiar with, so thank you for providing it all in one place.
I have some names I think should have made it though. Except Kusturica who we already talked about, I am surprised to see no Hirokazu Koreeda and Andrey Zvyagintsev on the list. Did they not make it or you didn’t study them yet? Also feel like Claude Chabrol could have made the lower half of the list.
@Chief Keef– thanks for the comment and the note here about the list and site– it means a lot. It was a lot of work– but I enjoyed doing it of course.
Yep- just haven’t caught enough of Kusturica to include him. I’ve seen three films a piece for both Koreeda and Zvyaginstev…. four for Chabrol. In each case just one time viewing of those films a piece. So it is sort of a combination of I didn’t study them enough and they just didn’t make the list. If I had been struck by them or blown away- surely they’d be on the list. But I don’t feel confident saying they definitively shouldn’t be on the list either if that makes sense– not until I’ve had a closer look.
This is great, thank you very much man. I think this is just your best feature on your archives and the most accurate list you have made, objectively speaking. I cannot think of a better list of directors. And each director page has something special. Thank you
I just thought of sort of an odd idea. Who is the equivalent of all these major auteurs as actors and vice-versa? In essence, who has a similar style of performance/direction? Actor-directors such as Welles, Chaplin, and Eastwood would be themselves of course, but besides them it’s interesting to think about. Some ideas to consider:
Kubrick is Daniel Day-Lewis. They don’t make movies very often and their genre/character is always different but they pack quite a powerful punch. Their performance/”cold” direction style is not “friendly” or accessible but quite interesting.
Wes Anderson is Charlie Chaplin (Of course, Chaplin as a director would be himself as an actor). They are whimsical and endlessly entertaining, but also surprisingly emotional, with a one-of-a-kind style/character that they follow every single time.
Fellini is Jack Nicholson. They are very energetic and always doing a version the same clownish worldview/character, but can become quite serious and forthcoming about human nature when it is necessary. Sometimes, narratives/characters finally get their sanity together by the end, while other times they wind up hopeless.
Capra is Henry Fonda. Often noted for moral rigidity, with a sly satirical element in their characters/movies that is not always noticed. Known for being collected and assertive, although they can burst into strong emotion easily as well.
Tarkovsky is Ryan Gosling. Plots/performances are very subtle and don’t quickly shift between events/emotions. Nothing is on the surface, and you must pay attention if you’d like to fully understand the message/character motivation.
Ozu is Ingrid Bergman. A master of subtle emotion, although not so subtle that we don’t understand the feelings portrayed, whose mise-en-scene/face is very beautiful. Foreign audiences may have difficulty grasping the style/voice at first but will become attached to the narrative/character after a short time.
Ophuls is Jimmy Stewart (this is probably not one you expected). The camera/he seem to be always moving and pacing around, making for an energetic ride for the viewer. Although their stylistic/slightly accented voice is very recognizable and unchangeable, they can be comedic, tragic, contemplative, and many other things.
Ingmar Bergman (perhaps David Lynch as well) is Maria Falconetti. Their performance/direction is very expressionistic and surreal. They seem somewhat grim and always obsessed with finding the truth about God. Very meaningful, although you must sift through the unusual character/movies to understand the messages,
Lumet is Leonardo DiCaprio. Prone to sudden bursts of anger, and when they become angry, they are shouting at the audience at loud as they can. Sometimes they have something big to say about the American system (political system, judicial system, corporate system) or about persevering through unexpected events.
Leone is Brad Pitt. Their characters are always trying to look cool, but often slow down for a minute or two at points to analyze their status in the plot/character development. Those who accuse them of constant sameness and being unrealistic can’t seem to notice how well they can adapt to different situations.
John Ford is Humphrey Bogart. They are tough and
Coppola is Gene Hackman. I’m mostly not going with collaborators but they did only one film together. They can be very contemplative but usually have moments of psychologically complex violent events/actions. Their top few movies/performances are all very close in (very high) quality.
Scorsese probably should be De Niro, but for non-collaborators I’d go with Marlon Brando. Their personal voice is very unique and carefully cultivated, but can be altered to whatever they find fits the narrative/character. They can become violent and angry, but are even more often personal and sensitive. Protagonists are often ordinary men who became unusually powerful due to plot circumstances.
Kurosawa probably would be Mifune, but outside of him I’ll say he’s Gloria Swanson. Emotions are heightened to a point of being purposefully urealistic, and characters often grow insane and delusional. They are prepared to show no mercy to people, but feel colorful even when their movies aren’t in color.
Are there any more ideas you’d add? Would any of the ones above work better as an equivalent to a different actor or director?
Wow, I didn’t realize how long that comment was and how many director-actor combinations their were until I posted it. I forgot to finish the Ford/Bogart comparison, though. Here is what I was going to say:
John Ford is Humphrey Bogart. They are tough but sensitive, and characters’ opinions often become clear in a concise shot/line. They claim that their only goal is to entertain, but are being humble about their true artistic merits. Sometimes, characters feel like they might just have to kills others to get what they want
@graham- very good interesting question. first id say that comparing gosling to tarkovsky is an insult to the soviet master. hmm. i’d say spielberg is jack lemmon for his humble gentleness, or ving rhames. dustin hoffman is hitchock for choosing studio films that explore his own personal ideas, howard hawks is harrison ford for making big studio films with great unrealized often films of artistic merit. de palma is jim carrey because they are both misunderstood greats (or adam sandler). marlon brando is orson welles for their poetic genius and tarantino is either robert pattinson or taylor lautner from twilight (maybe even bradley cooper).
Thanks and good additions. Gosling with Tarkovsky is, to me, certainly not an insult. Tarkovsky would certainly be ranked higher among diectors than Gosling among actors, but the later is one of the better subtle, often stone-faced performers in the tradition of Buster Keaton. Drake agrees, putting Gosling as the second-best of the 2010s,
Also, I’ll add another one: Herzog is Joaquin Phoenix. Kinski is the logical option, and there are many parallels between the two actors, but I think Phoenix actually works better. Herzog and Phoenix often explore people going mad, but their films/characters are very different in how they get to that madness. They also heavily deal with the theme of loneliness and feel sort of untouchable and unreachable, but interesting.
Haha this is very interesting @Graham, I wouldn’t put Gosling for Master Tarkovsky, for Lumet it would put Pacino, I will not say that your choices were wrong. some feel strange, but honestly it never would have happened to me.
Yes, I was thinking about Pacino going somewhere and Lumet was my first idea. DiCaprio may not seem very similar to Pacino, but I think he and Lumet work. All three (Al, Leo, Sidney) love to shout.
Who would you put with Tarkovsky, other than Anatoly Sonitsyn, the obvious (and perhaps more correct than Gosling) choice?
Makes no sense after number 5 (remove Hitchcock form 1)
David Barwinski
September 24, 2020 at 5:55 pm - Reply
Great list!
I agree with Matt Harris that Kurosawa should be much higher. Really it’s Kubrick, Kurosawa, Hitchcock. Take your pick.
I’d put Tarkovsky higher. He and Bergman are neck and neck.
Not sure about Ozu being so high. “Tokyo Story”, “Late Spring” are great, of course, but something about his static camera which just doesn’t quite work. Kind of like Dreyer’s and Bresson’s asceticism. Cinephiles adore these guys, though, so maybe it’s just not my style.
No love for Herzog? I would place Herzog much higher and Scorsese a bit lower. I think that the two of them are the greatest living, still relevant directors by far. They seem to have a lot in common, too. I’m surprised they don’t get compared much.
But overall, very nice job. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.
I feel like purely as a filmmaker, Herzog is ranked appropriately. However, if documentary work was also considered, Herzog would easily be one of the greatest of all time. Lessons of Darkness is absolutely gorgeous. Absolutely incredible. His other documentary work is also good.
However, based on all his films (Aguirre etc), a top 40 rank (at 40) is perfect for Herzog.
Drake, I’m just wondering; why don’t you mention Pressburger and Gene Kelly for the films they co-directed? I’m curious because Donen and Powell are mentioned on your list. Pressburger and Kelly helped out a bit while directing too.
I’m sorry for being picky Drake. This was something small I noticed.
Your list is mostly incredible and the directors are placed appropriately.
What are some of the best films you know of that are directed by multiple directors? Do you know if there’s a reason why most directors prefer directing on their own?
You’re right here Azman, why do the Coens count together and the others don’t? Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Fargo, the Big Lebowski the credited director is Joel Coen, you still count those movies for both.
@Azman and @Aldo– you’re partially right and partially wrong. I should list them on the individual film pages (as I do here) http://thecinemaarchives.com/2020/04/10/i-know-where-im-going-1945-powell-pressburger/ and on the year by year archives (like I’ve done with some of Buster Keaton’s co-directors as I update the yearly pages. But Donen directed films Kelly didn’t and that’s why he’s on the 250 list and Kelly isn’t. Pressburger is well known as the financial side of the Powell and Pressburger tandem as I explain on the Powell page. http://thecinemaarchives.com/2019/05/14/the-35th-best-director-of-all-time-michael-powell/ . It is also well known that (up until now) the Coen brothers share their writing/acting/producing duties.
@Drake, Gene Kelly co directed Singin in the rain, Its always fair weather and On the Town with Stanley Donen.
Other movies he has directed or co-directed are:
Invitation to the dance
Happy Road
The tunnel of love
Gigot
A guide for the married man
Hello Dolly
The Cheyenne Social club
That’s entertainment part 2.
I don’t know if these ‘non-Donen’ films are archiveable, but Kelly had quite a big role with directing the musicals with Donen. He helped choreograph the dance scenes (especially in SIngin in the rain). Kelly decided some shots too and how to shoot them. Perhaps the most famous dance scene in cinema history was choreographed by Kelly and some shots too
Drake
September 24, 2020 at 7:57 pm
@Azman- Thanks–I’m aware. Happy with how I have things here.
This is crazy stat, I mentioned Lang with Metropolis and M, but we could well declare Anderson the best of all and close the book, the 14 directors in front of him have never given the best movie of the year more than 3 times the exception is Coppola, Anderson gave the best movie of the year 5 times
Hitchcock 3: 1935, 1951, 1958
Kubrick 3: 1968, 1971, 1987
Bergman 2: 1957, 1966
Fellini 2: 1960, 1963
Scorsese 3: 1976, 1980, 1990 although you could also give 2019
Coppola 4: 1972, 1974, 1979, 1983
Welles 1: 1941
Ford 2: 1940, 1956
Kurosawa 2: 1950, 1954
Truffaut 1: 1959
Renoir 2: 1937, 1939
Anderson 5: 1997, 1999, 2002, 2007, 2012
Tarkovsky, Ozu and Antonioni they add up to a total of zero, they never gave the best movie of the year
@Aldo- very interesting. Others are going to have different #1 films of the year (even I am going to make some changes as I update my year by year archives) but this is still fascinating. Thank you for compiling.
Well i did this based on the Archives by year section, taking the movie that appears in the cover, so i don’t know how much it changes when you update it, although i must confess Tarkovsky’s statistics makes me very sad.
What do you think is due to Anderson’s crazy 5 statistic, you mention that there is no one equal to his generation and i agree, do you think it’s because he has no competition? because for example Hitchcock had bad luck, you mention his crazy career 58,59,60 but only in one of those years was he the best, but this is due to the amount of good directors working, in 54 he lost to 7 samurai, very movies good / rare that hardly appear, also Stalker would be the best movie of the year in +90 times, the same Manhattan, but they are unlucky that Apocalypse now came out that year, in the 50s and 60s there were several directors of the same level Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Godard, Fellini, Antonioni, Truffaut, Anderson belongs to that group, but in an era where he is alone
@Aldo- I mean I find it interesting- but it isn’t a declarative statement about which filmmakers are the best. I’m doing 1932 next (after 1931 of course) and there isn’t a film on the level of 1931’s M (which came runner-up so to speak in 1931). I may have had Full Metal Jacket as the best film of 1987 but there are a number of films from 2007 or 1960 (just way stronger years) better.
As for Tarkvosky, I have Stalker in my top 10 of all-time. So don’t feel too sad. haha. And when I update 1983- Nostalgia will be #1 so he’ll have at least one year as #1.
As for PT Anderson- I do think he’s the greatest of his generation. But he has a ton of competition (from Cuaron, Fincher, Tarantino, Wes Anderson for starters) but I’m not sure any generation, before or after, can compare with the late 1950’s and early 1960’s at the top
Drake, i want to apologize sincerely if i made you feel like i don’t appreciate the site. this is specifically in reference to a comment i posted yesterday on your back to the future page where i wrote ‘why aren’t there more images on this review’ and you replied ‘whats wrong with THIS one.’ i apologize, as i did not mean to offend you. i and everyone else who visits this site respects or should the hard work you put into it. all the movies you watch, your knowledge of the art form, allowing civil discourse, it is all very appreciates and as i said i respect what you do. i will take a break from commenting for a long spell and i think just focus on growing, watching more films and such. i don’t want to offend anyone, certainly not anyone who is this dedicated hardworking and passionate.
Okay, this is great, thank you very much
Okay this is excellent. Being able to link directly to the individual pages from the master list is a superb feature. Now you just need to bump Kurosawa 10 or 11 spots up the list and it’ll be perfect!
@Matt Harris– haha– yeah the links are a new thing here so bear with me on this continual work in progress. I have a few films to go to finish up the study but it does feel inevitable he’ll jump up when I reappraise the list.
@Matt Harris. Who is the best director of all time in your opinion?
Great list Drake! Is this the exact same list as before (when you used to release singular director pages) or did you make some slight changes? It looks pretty similar. Anyways. Great job!
@Azman– it is the same order– just a master list page with links. Thanks again
@Drake
Is it difficult to set up? Ideally the next level would be to be able to link to your individual film reviews from the director or actor pages, but I have no notion of how much work that would entail.
@Azman
I think I’ve stated here that Kurosawa is my choice for #1. I have no problem with anyone opting for one of Drake’s current top 2 though.
@Matt Harris,
What are some other directors (apart from kurosawa, Kubrick and Hitchockc) that you think very highly of(possible GOAT status)?
Which current directors’ work do you like the most? Which current director’s work do you look forward the most to?
I just like learning about different opinions from other fellow cinephiles. This question is to all readers of the blog.
@Matt Harris– it isn’t difficult once I messed around with it. It’s just busywork– this was just hours today not reading or writing about cinema or looking for screenshots or anything fun like that. I’m going to start linking more often moving forward. There are just 1500 pages now so the idea of going back and doing it doesn’t exactly appeal. I’ll start updating the year by year archives with hyperlinks to the films though as I go.
Haha you need to hire staff.
@Matt Harris- Haha. in the words of John Wayne- That’ll be the day
No love for Tarkovsky?
Actually i thought that the ideal would be, linking in the top 500 reviews them, although i think there are not many, take a look at the top 100 and so far i have found 43.
Is there any other director besides Scorsese and PTA who has reviews for all his filmography?
Everyone he’s done a study of since launching the site. Ozu, Tarantino, Corbucci, etc. Soon Kurosawa and Fuller. Well all the archivable filmography anyway.
Personally I’m planning to do a Tarkovsky deep dive soon.
@Matt Harris- Exciting!
@Aldo– is the Tarkovsky comment for me? There are other directors with their entire filmography covered with reviews here for sure. Some of them just have a lot less films (Steve McQueen for example).
It was actually for @Matt Harris, but i forgot to mention it.
I hope you have seen my comment on Kalazatov’s page, on the YouTube channel where I am cuba is, there are other movies of him, hopefully they are good.
My list wouldn’t differ tremendously from Drake’s. I think GOAT status can be a little more clearly established for directors than for individual films, so I wouldn’t travel too far down that list before I’d have a problem with ranking someone higher than the three I listed.
As for the current directors… I could list so many put I’ll pare it down to the bare bones. Scorsese is the greatest living. PTA, Tarantino, Cuaron, Nolan are the greatest current. Malick, Lynch, Wong, Tarr, Coens are the greatest to emerge between those two epochs. Chazelle and Aster are the young guns that most excite me going forward. And I’m sure I forgot someone essential that I’ll kick myself for later.
Thank you for your response. You are right. There are so many great directors working currently that listing all of them would take a long time.
Your list includes some great directors.
Amazing! This really is much better than I envisaged. Gosh it puts things into perspective. Despite reading his page, PTA might be the most revelatory of the lot. Still, seeing names like Wong, Malick, the Coens, Jarmusch right alongside or above Dreyer, Ophuls, Visconti and Mizoguchi really shows your objectivity in ranking. Love it!
I feel I should have said this first, but the hyperlinks are fantastic. I’m raring to dive into the 75-150 directors’ pages haha.
Great work !
@KidCharlemagne – thank you very much!
I find the absence of Frank Darabont to be completely inexcusable. To me, The Shawshank Redemption has some really wonderful camerawork. You have it graded as only a Must-See, but there are some cinematically transcendent moments that stand out as masterpiece-worthy to me, such as the scene with the music on the speakers, and the famous escape sequence. Its narrative and screenplay are in the conversation with the best of all time, and Darabont is able to capture all of the necessary emotion.
And that isn’t his only well-acclaimed film: he also did The Green Mile.
@Graham– thanks for the comment. Completely inexcusable huh? I mean Shawshank is superb- and very well directed. Just out of curiosity, who are you moving off this list to make way for Darabont? I had him on my list here- just didn’t quite make the cut in the top 250.
Okay, I will agree “completely inexcusable” was a bit harsh. It was just very surprising for me that I didn’t see his name.
I am not nearly as knowledgeable about film as you, and I have not heard of a lot of the directors on the list, so I cannot say which ones exactly I am moving. I simply feel that of all the good movies I have seen, The Shawshank Redemption seems to stand out as superb filmmaking. I am not the only one who believes this; it is the number one IMDb movie, for starters.
@Graham — thanks again for the comment. Darabont would be somewhere between 250-300 if I kept going (and I do at some point). I’ll have to admit I do not pay much attention to the IMDB list. This is another really good list here worth sharing- http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top250directors.htm – I’m not saying this is gospel truth (nor is my own list of course) but they also don’t have a spot for Darabont. There are just a lot of great directors out there.
There’s a few in the lower sections of the list that would not make my own. I’d take an Adam McKay, Alex Garland, or Ben Affleck over Tom Hooper, Bennett Miller, or Kenneth Lonergan for instance, but I’m not that interested in arguing at the margins of a tremendous list.
If I were to make any “inexcusible” claims it certainly wouldn’t be for Darabont. Not when Tsai Ming-Liang, Kim Ki-Duk, and Raoul Ruiz are nowhere to be seen. But lists evolve and what we have here is pretty much as good a resource as there is. I’m not about to start making demands… other than Kurosawa jumping up of course. 😉
@Matt Harris- thanks for the comment- appreciate the praise — and I like that you offer some suggestions for those you’d swap. Some I’ve seen the work and they just didn’t quite cut it (like McKay, Garland, Affleck)– McKay and Garland were very close- I hadn’t really considered Affleck but maybe I should (I do love those helicopter shots). And others (Tsai Ming-Liang, Kim Ki-Duk, and Raoul Ruiz) I have work to do yet studying their films before I could put them on.
Since we are with objections haha, i was surprised not to have seen Parajanov have The Color of Pomegranates HR and Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors HR / MS, i have not seen any of them, but the images in the reviews are that exquisite, they certainly have surrealism in common.
What a great list and what a great feature for the site. Can’t even imagine how much work went into this. So many people to check out and get familiar with, so thank you for providing it all in one place.
I have some names I think should have made it though. Except Kusturica who we already talked about, I am surprised to see no Hirokazu Koreeda and Andrey Zvyagintsev on the list. Did they not make it or you didn’t study them yet? Also feel like Claude Chabrol could have made the lower half of the list.
@Chief Keef– thanks for the comment and the note here about the list and site– it means a lot. It was a lot of work– but I enjoyed doing it of course.
Yep- just haven’t caught enough of Kusturica to include him. I’ve seen three films a piece for both Koreeda and Zvyaginstev…. four for Chabrol. In each case just one time viewing of those films a piece. So it is sort of a combination of I didn’t study them enough and they just didn’t make the list. If I had been struck by them or blown away- surely they’d be on the list. But I don’t feel confident saying they definitively shouldn’t be on the list either if that makes sense– not until I’ve had a closer look.
This is great, thank you very much man. I think this is just your best feature on your archives and the most accurate list you have made, objectively speaking. I cannot think of a better list of directors. And each director page has something special. Thank you
@Alejandro- you made me feel great here- thank you for the comment.
I just thought of sort of an odd idea. Who is the equivalent of all these major auteurs as actors and vice-versa? In essence, who has a similar style of performance/direction? Actor-directors such as Welles, Chaplin, and Eastwood would be themselves of course, but besides them it’s interesting to think about. Some ideas to consider:
Kubrick is Daniel Day-Lewis. They don’t make movies very often and their genre/character is always different but they pack quite a powerful punch. Their performance/”cold” direction style is not “friendly” or accessible but quite interesting.
Wes Anderson is Charlie Chaplin (Of course, Chaplin as a director would be himself as an actor). They are whimsical and endlessly entertaining, but also surprisingly emotional, with a one-of-a-kind style/character that they follow every single time.
Fellini is Jack Nicholson. They are very energetic and always doing a version the same clownish worldview/character, but can become quite serious and forthcoming about human nature when it is necessary. Sometimes, narratives/characters finally get their sanity together by the end, while other times they wind up hopeless.
Capra is Henry Fonda. Often noted for moral rigidity, with a sly satirical element in their characters/movies that is not always noticed. Known for being collected and assertive, although they can burst into strong emotion easily as well.
Tarkovsky is Ryan Gosling. Plots/performances are very subtle and don’t quickly shift between events/emotions. Nothing is on the surface, and you must pay attention if you’d like to fully understand the message/character motivation.
Ozu is Ingrid Bergman. A master of subtle emotion, although not so subtle that we don’t understand the feelings portrayed, whose mise-en-scene/face is very beautiful. Foreign audiences may have difficulty grasping the style/voice at first but will become attached to the narrative/character after a short time.
Ophuls is Jimmy Stewart (this is probably not one you expected). The camera/he seem to be always moving and pacing around, making for an energetic ride for the viewer. Although their stylistic/slightly accented voice is very recognizable and unchangeable, they can be comedic, tragic, contemplative, and many other things.
Ingmar Bergman (perhaps David Lynch as well) is Maria Falconetti. Their performance/direction is very expressionistic and surreal. They seem somewhat grim and always obsessed with finding the truth about God. Very meaningful, although you must sift through the unusual character/movies to understand the messages,
Lumet is Leonardo DiCaprio. Prone to sudden bursts of anger, and when they become angry, they are shouting at the audience at loud as they can. Sometimes they have something big to say about the American system (political system, judicial system, corporate system) or about persevering through unexpected events.
Leone is Brad Pitt. Their characters are always trying to look cool, but often slow down for a minute or two at points to analyze their status in the plot/character development. Those who accuse them of constant sameness and being unrealistic can’t seem to notice how well they can adapt to different situations.
John Ford is Humphrey Bogart. They are tough and
Coppola is Gene Hackman. I’m mostly not going with collaborators but they did only one film together. They can be very contemplative but usually have moments of psychologically complex violent events/actions. Their top few movies/performances are all very close in (very high) quality.
Scorsese probably should be De Niro, but for non-collaborators I’d go with Marlon Brando. Their personal voice is very unique and carefully cultivated, but can be altered to whatever they find fits the narrative/character. They can become violent and angry, but are even more often personal and sensitive. Protagonists are often ordinary men who became unusually powerful due to plot circumstances.
Kurosawa probably would be Mifune, but outside of him I’ll say he’s Gloria Swanson. Emotions are heightened to a point of being purposefully urealistic, and characters often grow insane and delusional. They are prepared to show no mercy to people, but feel colorful even when their movies aren’t in color.
Are there any more ideas you’d add? Would any of the ones above work better as an equivalent to a different actor or director?
Wow, I didn’t realize how long that comment was and how many director-actor combinations their were until I posted it. I forgot to finish the Ford/Bogart comparison, though. Here is what I was going to say:
John Ford is Humphrey Bogart. They are tough but sensitive, and characters’ opinions often become clear in a concise shot/line. They claim that their only goal is to entertain, but are being humble about their true artistic merits. Sometimes, characters feel like they might just have to kills others to get what they want
@graham- very good interesting question. first id say that comparing gosling to tarkovsky is an insult to the soviet master. hmm. i’d say spielberg is jack lemmon for his humble gentleness, or ving rhames. dustin hoffman is hitchock for choosing studio films that explore his own personal ideas, howard hawks is harrison ford for making big studio films with great unrealized often films of artistic merit. de palma is jim carrey because they are both misunderstood greats (or adam sandler). marlon brando is orson welles for their poetic genius and tarantino is either robert pattinson or taylor lautner from twilight (maybe even bradley cooper).
Thanks and good additions. Gosling with Tarkovsky is, to me, certainly not an insult. Tarkovsky would certainly be ranked higher among diectors than Gosling among actors, but the later is one of the better subtle, often stone-faced performers in the tradition of Buster Keaton. Drake agrees, putting Gosling as the second-best of the 2010s,
Also, I’ll add another one: Herzog is Joaquin Phoenix. Kinski is the logical option, and there are many parallels between the two actors, but I think Phoenix actually works better. Herzog and Phoenix often explore people going mad, but their films/characters are very different in how they get to that madness. They also heavily deal with the theme of loneliness and feel sort of untouchable and unreachable, but interesting.
Haha this is very interesting @Graham, I wouldn’t put Gosling for Master Tarkovsky, for Lumet it would put Pacino, I will not say that your choices were wrong. some feel strange, but honestly it never would have happened to me.
Yes, I was thinking about Pacino going somewhere and Lumet was my first idea. DiCaprio may not seem very similar to Pacino, but I think he and Lumet work. All three (Al, Leo, Sidney) love to shout.
Who would you put with Tarkovsky, other than Anatoly Sonitsyn, the obvious (and perhaps more correct than Gosling) choice?
Makes no sense after number 5 (remove Hitchcock form 1)
Great list!
I agree with Matt Harris that Kurosawa should be much higher. Really it’s Kubrick, Kurosawa, Hitchcock. Take your pick.
I’d put Tarkovsky higher. He and Bergman are neck and neck.
Not sure about Ozu being so high. “Tokyo Story”, “Late Spring” are great, of course, but something about his static camera which just doesn’t quite work. Kind of like Dreyer’s and Bresson’s asceticism. Cinephiles adore these guys, though, so maybe it’s just not my style.
No love for Herzog? I would place Herzog much higher and Scorsese a bit lower. I think that the two of them are the greatest living, still relevant directors by far. They seem to have a lot in common, too. I’m surprised they don’t get compared much.
But overall, very nice job. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.
I feel like purely as a filmmaker, Herzog is ranked appropriately. However, if documentary work was also considered, Herzog would easily be one of the greatest of all time. Lessons of Darkness is absolutely gorgeous. Absolutely incredible. His other documentary work is also good.
However, based on all his films (Aguirre etc), a top 40 rank (at 40) is perfect for Herzog.
Drake, I’m just wondering; why don’t you mention Pressburger and Gene Kelly for the films they co-directed? I’m curious because Donen and Powell are mentioned on your list. Pressburger and Kelly helped out a bit while directing too.
I’m sorry for being picky Drake. This was something small I noticed.
Your list is mostly incredible and the directors are placed appropriately.
What are some of the best films you know of that are directed by multiple directors? Do you know if there’s a reason why most directors prefer directing on their own?
You’re right here Azman, why do the Coens count together and the others don’t? Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Fargo, the Big Lebowski the credited director is Joel Coen, you still count those movies for both.
@Azman and @Aldo– you’re partially right and partially wrong. I should list them on the individual film pages (as I do here) http://thecinemaarchives.com/2020/04/10/i-know-where-im-going-1945-powell-pressburger/ and on the year by year archives (like I’ve done with some of Buster Keaton’s co-directors as I update the yearly pages. But Donen directed films Kelly didn’t and that’s why he’s on the 250 list and Kelly isn’t. Pressburger is well known as the financial side of the Powell and Pressburger tandem as I explain on the Powell page. http://thecinemaarchives.com/2019/05/14/the-35th-best-director-of-all-time-michael-powell/ . It is also well known that (up until now) the Coen brothers share their writing/acting/producing duties.
@Drake, Gene Kelly co directed Singin in the rain, Its always fair weather and On the Town with Stanley Donen.
Other movies he has directed or co-directed are:
Invitation to the dance
Happy Road
The tunnel of love
Gigot
A guide for the married man
Hello Dolly
The Cheyenne Social club
That’s entertainment part 2.
I don’t know if these ‘non-Donen’ films are archiveable, but Kelly had quite a big role with directing the musicals with Donen. He helped choreograph the dance scenes (especially in SIngin in the rain). Kelly decided some shots too and how to shoot them. Perhaps the most famous dance scene in cinema history was choreographed by Kelly and some shots too
@Azman- Thanks–I’m aware. Happy with how I have things here.
This is crazy stat, I mentioned Lang with Metropolis and M, but we could well declare Anderson the best of all and close the book, the 14 directors in front of him have never given the best movie of the year more than 3 times the exception is Coppola, Anderson gave the best movie of the year 5 times
Hitchcock 3: 1935, 1951, 1958
Kubrick 3: 1968, 1971, 1987
Bergman 2: 1957, 1966
Fellini 2: 1960, 1963
Scorsese 3: 1976, 1980, 1990 although you could also give 2019
Coppola 4: 1972, 1974, 1979, 1983
Welles 1: 1941
Ford 2: 1940, 1956
Kurosawa 2: 1950, 1954
Truffaut 1: 1959
Renoir 2: 1937, 1939
Anderson 5: 1997, 1999, 2002, 2007, 2012
Tarkovsky, Ozu and Antonioni they add up to a total of zero, they never gave the best movie of the year
@Aldo- very interesting. Others are going to have different #1 films of the year (even I am going to make some changes as I update my year by year archives) but this is still fascinating. Thank you for compiling.
Well i did this based on the Archives by year section, taking the movie that appears in the cover, so i don’t know how much it changes when you update it, although i must confess Tarkovsky’s statistics makes me very sad.
What do you think is due to Anderson’s crazy 5 statistic, you mention that there is no one equal to his generation and i agree, do you think it’s because he has no competition? because for example Hitchcock had bad luck, you mention his crazy career 58,59,60 but only in one of those years was he the best, but this is due to the amount of good directors working, in 54 he lost to 7 samurai, very movies good / rare that hardly appear, also Stalker would be the best movie of the year in +90 times, the same Manhattan, but they are unlucky that Apocalypse now came out that year, in the 50s and 60s there were several directors of the same level Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Godard, Fellini, Antonioni, Truffaut, Anderson belongs to that group, but in an era where he is alone
@Aldo- I mean I find it interesting- but it isn’t a declarative statement about which filmmakers are the best. I’m doing 1932 next (after 1931 of course) and there isn’t a film on the level of 1931’s M (which came runner-up so to speak in 1931). I may have had Full Metal Jacket as the best film of 1987 but there are a number of films from 2007 or 1960 (just way stronger years) better.
As for Tarkvosky, I have Stalker in my top 10 of all-time. So don’t feel too sad. haha. And when I update 1983- Nostalgia will be #1 so he’ll have at least one year as #1.
As for PT Anderson- I do think he’s the greatest of his generation. But he has a ton of competition (from Cuaron, Fincher, Tarantino, Wes Anderson for starters) but I’m not sure any generation, before or after, can compare with the late 1950’s and early 1960’s at the top
Drake, i want to apologize sincerely if i made you feel like i don’t appreciate the site. this is specifically in reference to a comment i posted yesterday on your back to the future page where i wrote ‘why aren’t there more images on this review’ and you replied ‘whats wrong with THIS one.’ i apologize, as i did not mean to offend you. i and everyone else who visits this site respects or should the hard work you put into it. all the movies you watch, your knowledge of the art form, allowing civil discourse, it is all very appreciates and as i said i respect what you do. i will take a break from commenting for a long spell and i think just focus on growing, watching more films and such. i don’t want to offend anyone, certainly not anyone who is this dedicated hardworking and passionate.