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!
@R- Thank you for visiting the site and the comment here. So unfortunately the works of Angelopoulos have been very hard for me to find over the years. So I wouldn’t think too much of my omission of him here. As for Bela Tarr— I largely used my top 500 list of films as the backbone of my top 250 directors list and I have a 10 year moratorium on all films for that list. So this spot for Tarr really doesn’t include The Turin Horse. So he should climb this list. As far Bergman and Tarkovsky– I mean I have them #3 and #8- that is really the very top tier
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.
@mehmet- if you’re asking me — I still have work to do on Ceylan. I’ll admit that I’ve seen four of his films to date below- once a piece, and I didn’t find any to be worthy of a spot on the top 10 of their respective year. But I’d like to do a more exhaustive study- maybe I’ll have time for it in 2021.
2002- Distant
2006- Climates
2011- Once Upon a Time in Anatolia
2014- Winter Sleep
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.
Lisa
March 6, 2022 at 4:09 am
All Time Great lists are a herculean task. And the placement perhaps even more so.
As a collective, we lovers of film often feel a personal favorite didn’t make the cut.
This is certainly a superb, undeniably deserving group of artists!
You know who I missed?
Lina Wertmueller…
Swept Away and Seven Beauties blew my mind despite being quite young upon 1st viewing. Revisiting her work years later the thrill was still there ♡
Drake
March 6, 2022 at 4:04 pm
@Lisa- Thank you for visiting the site and the comment. Hopefully the list and site gets better over time as I correct some things and fix blind spots. I must admit I have not had a chance to catch Swept Away yet.
Hi Drake, I’m a dear fan of your lists. The Lists are very informative & enjoyable. I know no one outside of India heard his name. But, Kasinadhuni Viswanath is a God of South Indian Cinema. His films are aesthetically brilliant & he is one of the few greatest filmmakers who manages style with substance and has very high respect for Arts like Classical Indian Music, Dance & Literature in Telugu Cinema (Not Bollywood). His Greatest Films are (we consider here):
1. Shankarabharanam (1980)
2. Sagara Sangamam (1983)
3. Swathi Muthyam (1986)
4. Swarna Kamalam (1988)
5. Swayam Krushi (1987)
Besides Satyajit Ray, there are many Great Filmmakers in India only if you want know more Indian Culture & Art:
1. K. Balachander (Apoorva Ragangal, Avargal, Maro Charitra & Rudraveena)
2. Guru Dutt (Pyaasa & Kaagaz Ke Phool)
3. Ritwik Ghatak (Meghe Dhaka Tara, )
4. Singeetam Srinivasa Rao (Pushpaka Vimanam, Aditya 369 & Michael Madana Kama Rajan)
5. K. Raghavendra Rao (Jagadeka Veerudu Athiloka Sundari, Annamayya & Pelli Sandhadi)
6. Shekhar Kapoor (Masoom, Mr. India & Bandit Queen)
7. Maniratnam (Nayakan, Iruvar, Dil Se… & Kannathil Muthamittal)
8. Ram Gopal Varma (Shiva, Kshana Kshanam, Rangeela & Satya)
9. S. S. Rajamouli (Magadheera, Eega & Baahubali 2: The Conclusion)
10. Lijo Jose Pellisery (Angamaly Dairies, Ee Ma Yau & Jallikattu)
{ Majority of our Indian Films are combined with songs, melodrama & comedy. So, if someone gets used to it then, These Great Films are the right place to start in the Whole Wide World }.
@RAVI KIRAN- thank you for the kind works and for sharing this. I’ll keep this here and come back to it– I want to try to catch some of these films and filmmakers. I am actually planning to do a Guru Dutt study in 2021–I’ll be watching as many Guru Dutt films as I can find.
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 more on the production 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.
Just a minor correction — Emeric Pressburger was not the financial side of Powell & Pressburger. He was for all intents and purposes their films’ main screenwriter; I Know Where I’m Going!, for one originated in an idea of his that he decided to turn into a screen story. He was just as involved in the pre-production and editing stages as Powell and is credited as cowriter, codirector and coproducer for a very good reason. He was an absolutely integral part of all of the films.
Drake
November 19, 2023 at 1:08 am
@RW- fair- changed the financial side comment- thank you
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.
A really wonderful list you have put together here, only outdone by the depth of study and focus you have done for each director on it. Any plans for what your next big ranking might be? I have seen a few ideas being tossed around in these comments like screenplays and directors ranked between 251-500, but do you know what you’re drawn to most yet?
@Declan- thanks for the kind words. I’m updating the year by year archives right now (last did it in 2017) and then I’m not sure after that. I do find myself drawn to the auteur/director aspect of things but people do love the actor rankings, too. We’ll see. I’m only on 1939 right now- doing 2-3 a week so this will take me some time to work my way through things and I can think about it
Chaplin directed amazing movies in silent era and after that.. For me, is on my top 5. He touches both eras as no director ever made, and directed great pics (Modern Times, the Great Dictator.. so many..)
You’ve mentioned a small number of films that you think could rightfully be called the single greatest of all time when examined thoroughly. How long do you think the list of directors is that you would accept as number one? How far down the list would it take until you think you could argue against a person’s choice? I know it must be a little farther than twelve, or else you would have parted ways with Matt Harris years ago (Although you’ve implied Kurosawa may be moving up now that you’ve finished your study). What about actors and actresses, or even some other occupations like cinematographers and writers?
@Graham- Interesting. I’m not sure there is a set number But I’d say if you get too far past 25 then either I’m missing something (which can happen- I was wrong or uninformed when it came to Ozu a few years ago) or we’re using different criteria (and at that point I’d disagree with the criteria being used). It may be a little deeper than that for actors and actresses.
I know this website is all about making lists- and hey- I love doing them, debating them— but to it is more about admiring the work from all of them and trying to be as specific as possible (sometimes down to the minute in a film or the frame from the film or a camera movement) as the the reason. Who is worthy of admiration and study and where do you start if you had to prioritize your time? It doesn’t get me too worked up debating Hitchcock vs. Welles or whomever. Why are they in the top tier? Who else is with them? and so on.
I completely agree, and thanks for responding. Admiring and enjoying cinema is much more about just that – enjoyment and admiration – than specificity and analytics. I couldn’t set such a number myself, anyway. Sometimes it is fun to pay attention to the specific moments and superiority of a person’s skills over another, and sometimes I just like to sit back and appreciate the majesty of the movies. That’s “There’s nothing else, just us, and the cameras, and those wonderful people out there in the dark.” And there can also be times of “All right, Mr. (or Ms.) DeMille (or Kubrick, or Coppola, or Hepburn, or Lubezki), I’m ready for my close-up (or filmography study)!”
@Graham- yep we’re on the same page. And I mean if you read my feelings on like director #199 or #228– I’m mean I’m pretty passionate about their work, filmography, style to study and admire. It isn’t like I spend the whole time on the page complaining why they aren’t Kubrick or Tarkovsky. That isn’t the point there. There are so many great directors to discover.
@Pedro – thanks for visiting the site and for the comment. So Resnais on the list- at #142. But your comment may be saying that he is underrated at #142. I did a quick study of Resnais’ available work in the spring of 2020 so if you search “Resnais” you’ll get my pages for a handful of films. He will be moving up the list the next time I update it based on this study.
Patrick Dunne
November 4, 2020 at 11:25 pm - Reply
Happy to see Hitchcock at the top spot, but why is Rob Reiner so low?
Drake, you’ve always maintained that your best actors lists are different than a “most talented actors” list because a less talented person may have a superb filmography and vice-versa. In theory, how would a most talented directors list for you look? Would that be the same as a list ranking “style-plus” directors? Who might be a rough top five for you on such a list?
@Graham- that’s interesting … The next time I update it I could see whose filmography is rated lowest in comparison with their overall landing spot on the list– that may tell me something. I don’t think I’d get outside of the top 10-20 though to get to those 5 for your list
It would not be something like Tati or Kalatozov that their films are unique but they do not have much depth of work.
Usually the best directors are not the most mediocre.
The ten most talented directors are the top 10.
Usually won’t find low-talented directors like Chaplin being the best, it just doesn’t make sense, to make many of the best movies you need to be the most talented.
You can make a very good movie like many, but you just won’t find the best movies made by untalented directors, just take a look at the top 20, almost all of them are made up of the top 10 directors, it’s called luck in some cases, but luck doesn’t strike many times as you can see with Stanley Donen
Here’s another interesting exercise I just envisioned. What can be considered the signature shot of each of these talented auteurs, or the one that most defines their work? This is not necessarily the same as their greatest shot. I will go in order mentioning the ones for which I have an idea.
Hitchcock – I think the iconic shot of Cary Grant running away from the crop duster epitomizes the master of suspense perfectly.
Kubrick – It is difficult to choose a single image. Perhaps the opening shot of A Clockwork Orange? Semi-symmetrical, unforgiving, and including that famous Kubrickian stare. Another is the pilot riding on the bomb as it falls in Dr. Strangelove.
Bergman – The dance of death is the most memorable, but the choice for Bergman must be some sort of arrangement of faces. I select the beautiful moment in Persona in which the two leads’ silhouetted heads lean together.
Ozu – Every shot in an Ozu film could be regarded as his signature shot. Ebert mentions a simple shot in Tokyo Story where two pairs of shoes are sitting in the hallway of the resort to which the elderly leads traveled to “rest” – perhaps his best “pillow shot.”
I will have more soon.
@Graham- love the exercise. So tough to pick just one. On my 250 individual director pages I’m obviously trying to do this (but I can pick 2, 3 and in some cases can’t help myself and get to 15-20- haha). Of course I could be missing some and some (tough increasing less and less) could be hard to find images of
Continued from the above comment:
Fellini – Any shot that satirizes life as a whole could suffice for this choice. The scene at the end of 8 1/2 where the characters dance around in a circus seems to embody this idea best, but Guido floating away from the sweaty traffic jam in the same film and Marcello wading into the fountain in La Dolce Vita are just as perfect.
Scorsese – The Copa shot in Goodfellas and the one that tracks over to the empty hallway in Taxi Driver are wonderful, but perhaps not the most characteristic of his style. I’ll go with the slow motion (very Scorsesian) moment in the final fight scene of Raging Bull where De Niro leans in waiting on the bars.
Coppola – The superimposed image of Sheen’s upside down head on the exploding forest constitutes my favorite opening sequence in cinema. Effective camera angles, dissolve editing, a contemplative protagonist, and superb openings are characteristic of Coppola.
Tarkovsky – The “candle shot” in Nostalghia of the poet walking back and forth for nine minutes is something absolutely no one but Tarkovsky would have the guts to do, but I think the choice must be the stunning wide shot of the room in Stalker with mounds of sand. Green-gray color scheme and the floor as an element of composition.
Ford – The doorway shot in The Searchers. Duh.
Kurosawa – The image of the swing through the jungle gym in Ikiru is an impeccable one and the old lord walking out of the burning castle in Ran is another, but I will lobby for what may be my favorite closing shot in cinema in Seven Samurai.
Truffaut – It’s pretty obviously the freeze frame that closes The 400 Blows. This gives us three in a row that are the final shot in a movie.
PT Anderson – The Master’s shot of Freddie lying above the sailors on the boat may be Anderson’s most beautiful, but I think Daniel being forced to recount his sins in the church in There Will Be Blood best epitomizes his thematic and visual style.
Ophuls – It must be an energetic tracking shot for Max Ophuls. Perhaps the opening of The Earrings of Madame de…?
Lynch – This one is not as obvious a choice. Perhaps the shot in Mulholland Drive’s Club Silencio where everything becomes dark blue? This incorporates Lynch’s dark, odd and haunting use of color and setting.
Dreyer – The shot to define Dreyer’s work must be a close-up with evocative mise-en-scene. How about the one of Joan praying with the cross behind her in The Passion of Joan of Arc?
Continued again:
Leone – One of Leone’s trademark extreme close-ups might seem better, but I think the frame near the beginning of OUaTitW where Frank’s three duelists square off with Harmonica may be a signature shot for him.
Wong – The saturated orangey image of Cheung and Leung standing by the wall of the hallway beautified by the shadows of bars in ITMFL seems to best illustrate Wong’s mood oriented color design and calm film structuring.
Malick – Any shot in a Malick movie, or at least any focusing on nature (a.k.a. any shot in a Malick movie) would suffice. Perhaps the terrific composition in Days of Heaven where the six silhouetted men are situated in the fields by the mansion watching the locusts rise above is my favorite.
Murnau – Either the shadow of Nosferatu creeping up the stairs or the Man in gazing at the moon by the lake (two in a row shots of silhouette men in fields looking at something above them) in Sunrise is perfect for Murnau. I will select the latter as I believe it includes Murnau’s wonderful gliding camera movement.
Allen – Do I really have to do this (sorry, that’s a reference to a film by the next director :)? It is certainly the iconic photography of Woody and Keaton sitting on a bench by the Queensboro Bridge.
Spielberg – There are many options, but the brilliant silhouette of E.T. and Elliott biking across the moon at night is impossible to resist. Quite Spielbergian.
Beginning here, the number of directors for whom I can decide becomes sparser. I will choose some random ones I can think of quickly for now.
Lean – The beautiful frame of Gasim staggering away into the sunset may be Lean’s most gorgeous shot, but one earlier in Lawrence of Arabia better illustrates his epic scope. It is the extreme wide shot of the dunes with two tiny figures in the distance that introduces us to Arabia.
Altman – Altman is known for his reliance on steady, calm zoom lens usage and his expansive amounts of characters. The shot of Tomlin in the back of the bar in Nashville incorporates both traits.
De Sica – I don’t believe that the moment where Antonio and his son hopelessly sit onto the curb in Bicycle Thieves is the film’s single greatest, but it is certainly the most iconic
Fincher – He is known for dark ligting and subtle color creation, both of which appear in nearly every shot. The final shot of Fight Club watching the effects of Tyler’s scheming may be the epitome of Fincher’s style.
Kieslowski – The choice here must be one with brilliant use of primary colors and fine-tuned formal significance. Any of the shots of the blue mobile in Blue embody these ideas quite well.
Griffith – The crane shot of the massive Babylon gate in Intolerance is the best choice here. Expansive and epic.
Sorry to be flooding the comments, but the site will not allow me to put it all in one entry.
Herzog – Kinski’s speech leaning against the tree in Aguirre is haunting, psychological, and minimalist. Very Herzogian (who says you can’t make an -ian out of every director’s name?).
Bertolucci – The shot of the many-windowed corridor in The Conformist is an immaculate composition and work of lighting like all of Bertolucci’s ouevre.
Mann – De Niro leaning on the post by the window in Heat is a justifiably iconic image. It includes Mann’s trademark use of dark blue as well.
Scott – Blade Runner has Ridley’s famous smoky shadows in all its shots. The one with Rachel holding the cigarette in her hand is a masterful use of lighting.
Peckinpah – Although Peckinpah is mostly known for editing, he slow walk of the four uncaptured members of the group to retrieve their kidnapped comrade is famous for other reasons.
Cuaron – Children of Men and Gravity have many perfect Cuaronian (as I said with Herzog, I’ll make any name an adjective if I like) moments, but the obvious choice is the tracking shot of the family hugging on the beach in Roma. Breathtaking photography and style.
W. Anderson – It must be something symmetrical with bold color design. Perhaps the shot of Monsieur Gustave smiling at the concierge dest of the Grand Budapest?
Tati – There is a composition in Playtime with a man walking down a long hallway in half the frame and two men having a conversation in another. It is a perfect mise-en-scenal (I can make adjectives out of other kinds of nouns, too!) creation.
Gilliam – The fisheye lens shot of the man wearing the baby mask in Brazil’s torture chamber is exactly the absurdism that make his movies so wonderful.
Chaplin – You must have more restraint than any other human on this planet if you have the ability to refrain from laughing at any point in City Lights’ boxing scene.
S. Coppola – The everlasting loneliness of Charlotte sitting next to the window in Lost in Translation is the easy contender here.
Demme – The Silence of the Lambs’ creative close-up shot of Clarice with Hannibal reflected on the glass next to her is the best illustration of Demme’s style.
That’s enough for now. Have I made the correct choices? What may be the signature shot for some of the auteurs I missed?
von Sternberg- the final shot of Morocco as Amy leaves her shoes in the sand and follows the French Legionnaires across the dunes
Rossellini- Shot of Magnani running down the street in Rome, Open City
De Palma- Split diopter of the fish with the ice pick and the Nancy Allen lookalike in Blow Out (alluding to her fate)
Keaton- Charging onward as the Confederate army retreats in the opposite direction in The General (at least epitomizes Keaton’s reluctant heroism)
Stone- the slain Sgt. Elias’ arms outstretched in an obvious allusion to Christ in Platoon
Have you seen films from Jean Marie Straub and Danielle Huillet ? If yes, what is your opinion ? I’m looking forward to get to them but I don’t think the films are easy to find.
@Cinephile- I have not seen them. I’ve been looking for them but yeah- not easy to find. You and others can probably teach me about finding stuff on YouTube. I know it varies by geography/region but aside from some public domain silent stuff in high quality I’ve stayed away from youtube as a resource. Perhaps I’m missing out
@Drake – I really hope you manage to view Possession before updating 1981. It is a true game changer. So unique and expressionistic to a fault. I don’t want to get extensively into it, but I’ve watched this and That Most Most Important Thing: Love, and it would be really great to talk about Zulawski on this blog. I’m missing out on On the Silver Globe, which I hear is his most visually and stylistically ambitious effort. @Cinephile, would you recommend it?
@Georg– On The Silver Globe is aesthetically innovative in its visual style but I found the film deeply problematic. Truly overlong, narratively defective, often formally uninteresting (at least to me), maybe it’s “100% unfinished” nature makes it lose some power and if you put there the constant screams of the actors that I really found annoying and exasperating, you can say I didn’t love it. Still, maybe I’d give it a Recommend grade. But to be honest, it felt unwatchable to certain occasions.
@Cinephile- well, I guess you could say Zulawski is somewhat excessive haha. That Most Important Thing: Love didn’t work at all (though both Romy Schneider and Klaus Kinski were tremendous, I’m not even exaggerating, they were amazing here), but his characteristic style is there. Perhaps an R, but even then closer to not being recommended at all. Possession is truly visceral though and has all the trademark traits that one would seek in auteur cinema. I think I’d watch On the Silver Globe out of curiosity, but I take it you don’t think much of it, haha. I can really imagine all those drawbacks you describe.
KreatoR
January 28, 2021 at 1:31 pm
Watch it bro, i doubt you will be disappointed. Zulawski is a special marvel of European cinema.
I’m sorry friend but Possession it’s on level cult of The Room, meets Suspiria, remake of course. It’s not good cinema. It’s borderline superb though. The screenplay it’s TERRIBLE
@Azman- well first off directors with really strong films between 2009-2020 (and newer) will climb. I used my top 500 as the main skeleton for my top 250 directors list and I have that 10 year moratorium. But beyond that- certainly it feels like Kurosawa will climb, definitely Visconti… I enjoyed the Jarmusch study but he will fall a little (certainly Visconti will go past him)– I’m not sure on others… I haven’t decided what to do next after I update the year by year archives (currently on 1951 so there is a ways to go).
@Cinephile- haha interesting- I haven’t heard the term in a few years- it was quite a topic (in cinephile circles) in 2012-2013 I think. I think it is just largely an extension of the normal auteur theory championed by the Cahiers Du Cinema critics and Andrew Sarris— they all saw themselves as finding consistencies throughout a directors work- regardless of genre, budget, popularity and championing those that deserved to be championed— I’d like to think that’s what I’m trying to do in my own little humble way as well (certainly not putting myself in the company of these giants)… what are your thoughts?
@Drake– I find the theory quite interesting. I think many cinephiles, me too when I finally got serious about cinema, have a bias against genres. It’s interesting since many of us cinema lovers, in the before-serious-with-cinema period, we loved the movies that fall into the vulgar auteurism category, then when we finally discover and watch Tarkovsky and Bergman, we become these snobbish pricks that all of a sudden are biased against the films that wouldn’t qualify as “serious” artistic achievements. But then, our cinephilia becomes more mature and we finally appreciate everything. Wow. Quite a journey–haha. I support vulgar auteurism. Especially here in Greece, the local critical community is incredibly skewed on the genres. I’m not saying that every “vulgar” movie must be championed, because many people, in their attempt to be these kinds of controversial or contrarian cinephiles go in the other side and find a masterpiece out of a bad movie. Every film is a craft and must be evaluated as such. To conclude, I’m beginning my journey with the “vulgar” movies, I’ll give them attention probably starting with Paul W.S. Anderson movies and we’ll see from there.
@Cinephile– happy near year to you as well– I agree with you here. But do you see a big difference between “vulgar” auteurism — and the auteur theory in general– I mean if you go back two decades before the phrase with what Tarantino was doing praising genre films, De Palma— or even further back the French critics praising Hitchcock and coining the phrase “noir” for B-movies after WW2? I don’t. I mean I have Refn’s Only God Forgives firmly in my top 100 of the 2010’s as an example— anyways- please report back if you find any films or particular directors worthy of a closer look
Cinephile
December 31, 2020 at 5:37 pm
@Drake– I fully agree here, you make a great point. Yesterday, I saw The Grey, which I’ve seen people categorize as vulgar auteurism. It’s great, the best film in the Neeson action persona in the last decade or so. Maybe I’ll go in the 2011 page and write more about it.
I Haven’t seen as many films as you’ve seen. But, According to me,
Top 10 Greatest Filmmakers of all Time are:
1. Stanley Kubrick
2. Ingmar Bergman
3. Alfred Hitchcock
4. Kasinadhuni Viswanath
5. Akira Kurosawa
6. Federico Fellini
7. Andrei Tarkovsky
8. Martin Scorsese
9. Jean-Luc Godard
10. Steven Spielberg
@RAVI KIRAN – thanks for visiting the site and for the comment here. This is a great list of filmmakers– I haven’t seen any films from Kasinadhuni Viswanath or heard of him– any particular film to start with if I can locate his films?
If a director were to make a brilliant style-plus film that was the best of all-time or at least on the level of 2001, Apocalypse Now, and such, but then never make another movie at all, where would they land?
@Graham- well it isn’t on the level of 2001 but Andrew Dominik with The Assassination of Jesse James may be the closest example…. he has a couple of other archiveable films (and a new one coming in 2021 that i’m excited about) but the other archiveable films don’t land in the top 20 of their year so this is pretty much it. I have him at 200 here– so certainly if someone made 2001 and that was it– I’d have him/her on the list, and higher than Dominik— I’m not sure how high I’d have to go– Carol Reed at #118?
How much does having a masterpiece or multiple masterpieces, rather than simply a great body of work, impact a director’s placing? If that question is too unspecific, imagine this hypothetical situation (all I seem to ask on this site are hypothetical situations haha): there is a director who has made 20-30 must-see films, but none that rise to the MP level. Using your filmography ranking scale, I would assume this director would land at or near the very top, but the lack work in the very top tier would seem concerning. Roughly where would this director fall on the general list? I know such a director would be unlikely to occur, but it is fascinating to consider.
I’m not Drake, but if you have a shitload of MSs that would mean you’re a great director, a reaaaaaally great director even, but if you don’t have at least 1-2 MPs than can you really be THE best director? Just a thought.
@Graham— I think 20-30 Must-See’s is what changes this. I think I have Fassbinder with 5 Must-See’s (I actually think he has at least one masterpiece now but that’s a different conversation) and he’s at #51 on my list. 20-30 is a crazy number– the last time I updated my top 500 Hitchcock had the most total films– so this hypothetical person would pass Hitchcock— even without a masterpiece I don’t see how you could keep them out of the top 10
If you ever get the chance, try to watch Nikos Nikolaidis’s films. One of the best filmmakers to come out of Greece. He makes a truly divergent cinema compared to other Greek movies. They never made films like his in the country.
There are an alarming number of coincidences among the names of cinematic masters. Two of the three greatest French filmmakers are named Jean (Renoir and Godard), and the best actress from France has the female version of the name (Jeanne Moreau). The debut and masterpiece of one of those Jean directors stars an American named Jean (Seberg). The best French director is not named Jean, but one of his muses is (Leaud). The best Swedish director has Bergman as his surname (Ingmar), as does the country’s/world’s greatest actress (Ingrid). Two of the most acclaimed American actress are Hepburns (Katharine and Audrey), and there are at least three notables Keaton actors (Diane, Buster, and Michael). The greatest director of this century and the two greatest mise-en-scene masters of recent times all have the last name Anderson/Andersson (PT, Wes, Roy), as do two of the muses of Bergman (Bibi and Harriet). Leigh is a promising name for actresses (Vivien and Janet), as is Lee for directors (Spike and Ang). None of these people, as far as I know, are related.
There may be many more. I can’t pretend these aren’t common names, but it is fun to explore.
Quite surprised to not see Parajanov on the list.
Definitely a unique style. So i saw his 2 most famous movies (the same ones that you saw and have a review)
I can only assume that you forgot to include it in the final spaces, he should be somewhere near Jodorowsky
It saddens me that Mikio Naruse is so criminally overlooked in almost every “greatest directors” list I find on the internet. I know I’m in the minority and most people would call it sacrilege, but I personally like him more than Ozu. Now, I know that’s completely subjective and I’m not saying he deserves a top 10 placement, but he should definitely be somewhere in that list.
I would also like to mention Luis García Berlanga and Carlos Saura, two Spanish filmmakers who I think should be included too, especially Berlanga, who somehow managed to avoid Francoist censorship for years and made some of the sharpest satires in European cinema.
That being said, it’s a great list overall. I would make some adjustments in regard to some of the placements, but most of these names I’m 100% on board with.
I can finally comment here.
You did not answer this comment Drake, have you seen any Mikio Naruse movies?
I must admit i had no idea who Mikio Naruse was until @David brought it up.
Definitely the similarities are pretty obvious with Ozu, he even places the camera at ground level, and uses the shoji doors for framing, as well as using Setsuko and Kurosawa actors.
It could be said that he is another disciple of Ozu just like Hsiao-Hsien Hou.
I could see one of his movies “When a woman ascends the stairs”, good movie.
If i remember correctly there are some Naruse movies on Criterion, you should take a look.
It’s been over a year and I would like to backtrack: after revisiting Ozu’s ouvre, I must say that he is a way better director than Naruse, at least from a purely stylistic standpoint, so I was definitely wrong about that. It’s taken me a while to truly appreciate him. That being said, I still think Naruse is better at working with actors, and he elicited some brilliant performances over the course of his career, especially from his muse Hideko Takamine (I would submit films like Yearning, Flowing, A wanderer’s notebook and When a woman ascends the stairs as examples). I still think he deserves some placement on this list for his subtlety, thematic depth and precise editing, even if he’s not as visually startling as some of his contemporaries.
Also, I’m going to take this chance to push for Carlos Saura once more. I strongly recommend that you take a look at some of his work from the 70s because there is a lot to appreciate in them (Raise ravens and Elisa, vida mía are both brilliant films, the latter having tremendous performances from Fernando Rey and Geraldine Chaplin).
Anyway, keep up the good work!
Drake
April 25, 2022 at 9:18 pm
@David- Thanks for the comment- great share. I have much work to do on Naruse – I’m hoping I can do so here later in 2022.
Are you familiar with the work of Seijun Suzuki?
He worked a lot in the 60s for Japanese movie studio, Nikkatsu?
He’s clearly an influence on Tarantino and I’m sure a number of other directors.
He currently has 7 movies on the Criterion Channel, I’ve seen 5 of the 7 and was thoroughly impressed by all of them.
I bring him up because I know you’ve said you are a style over substance critic and Seijun Suzuki is certainly style over substance director. Both Tokyo Drifter and Branded to Kill are candidates for best Yakuza movie of all time in my opinion
@James Trapp- great share– so the answer here is no. I’ve had Branded to Kill sitting here ready to go for years– I just have not got around to it yet. Maybe I’ll slide a Suzuki study in soon. Thank you
Consider yourself lucky cause you’re in for a real treat. If you like Tarantino, Jean Pierre Melville, John Woo, and others cut from that same cloth then you definitely appreciate his style. Here is an article about Branded to Kill
@Drake and anyone else who’d like to chip in: if you gave all the money in the world to these directors and the message “direct whatever the hell you goddamn please,” how do you think their rankings might change?
Great question. I think it is rather difficult to determine what would happen for some but fairly easy for others. Dreyer is perhaps the most instantaneous prediction for me. I would assume that he, who demonstrates supreme talent in all elements of cinema but was unable to make films often, would push past some other directors ranked higher on the list. Welles is one that I’m sure many would expect to exceed his level of greatness if he had been able to obtain more financial backing. However, ego played a role in his slight decline as well, which cannot be eased by simply the access to money. Coppola is a similar case, but I don’t believe he lacked funds or artistic freedom for his later career. I would love if Leone had made more movies, but as far as I know, his small resume was a personal choice rather than a negative financial effect. Would having more money and artistic freedom stop Tarkovsky from dying so early? Perhaps that’s a little insensitive. I don’t think he’d change drastically one way or the other. Lynch and Cronenberg seem to have been successful in crafting their odd nightmares exactly the way they like, so I wouldn’t expect either to rise much (I find each slightly overrated as it is). Dominik is an intriguing case. I think we’ll have to wait and see the future of his career before determining the possible effects. This may be a controversial opinion, but I think your hypothetical situation might actually drop Christopher Nolan in average quality. He seems to have a thorough desire to do all he can to complicate his narratives and special effects. I’m worried that too much support would cause him to go haywire with the complexities and begin to ignore the stylistic prowess he possesses.
It’s often said that with Welles he was probably the single most gifted director of all time (and I think there’s a very compelling argument to be made about that) and that if only he had more money and Hollywood threw themselves at his feet constantly he would’ve made the greatest films of all time. I do feel this is somewhat wish-fulfillment but considering how great Welles’ movies are it is an intriguing idea.
With Coppola I do somewhat disagree with you, he had much difficulty finding funding later in his career. One From the Heart was a box-office catastrophe as was Rumble Fish the following year (not that these aren’t great films), followed by yet another bomb in The Cotton Club after that, though it made substantially more money than the previous two. Despite this, 1983’s The Outsiders was a big hit and he often alternated between hit and bomb the next few years until his financial situation forced him into directing The Godfather Part III in 1990, which he never had truly planned to ever make, since it was almost surely to be a hit, and of course it was. He may have had money and artistic freedom (he kept getting directing jobs even as his films failed not unlike Scorsese in the same decade), but in the end he kept losing money forcing him into a project it never really seemed he actually wanted.
With Leone, I’m not entirely sure, I might have misplaced him here but he only made one film in both the 70s and 80s and it might just be better to think of Leone making more, anyway at the time of his death I believe he secured $100M for a Soviet war film called Leningrad to star Robert de Niro that of course fell apart when he died, a shame he left us so early at 60.
With Tarkovsky, I mean idk, maybe you could have him escape to the West sooner so that he doesn’t have to film Stalker in such a hellish environment that ended his life and those of many others (at least hopefully he still makes a Stalker analogue here; it’s just TOO good to lose). However I do agree that I don’t really think he’d change his style, even after he went West nothing much actually changed.
Cronenberg nowadays has found difficulty finding funding for his films and has considered retiring because of it but I do have a vain hope he makes another Dead Ringers or A History of Violence; maybe in the 80s he shoots bigger after The Fly and “lands it” so to speak in the public mind, though hopefully not dropping the quality of his films which were very good in this period.
Lynch, idek, he’s definitely a maverick from Hollywood especially after Dune so I don’t know what changing his funding or reputation could do but it could get Mulholland Drive as a full miniseries (though I fear it might be worse than the amazing end result), more seasons of Twin Peaks early and probably various other things not coming to me right now. And too with Dominik the main problem I guess is just not working enough. We’ll have to wait for Blonde to see if he can pull off another Jesse James.
I agree with your take on Nolan. He seems pretty hit-and-miss which was clear probably more than ever this year with Tenet and giving him like $400M to make whatever he wants will probably not result in an amazing film, but if he writes a script of the quality of Inception than you might have something great on your hands.
You are probably correct with Coppola. You have a bit more insight than me about his financial and production situation. I agree with everything else you have stated as well.
With Tarkovsky, I suppose in this fantastical situation we perhaps could divert his attention away from radiation areas for Stalker. However, I think that’s getting a bit carried away. Hollywood would probably not welcome his calm and very un-New Wave style at that time anyway.
Zane
February 3, 2021 at 12:27 am
Who says he’s going to Hollywood? He never did when he fled the Soviets in our timeline. He did Nostalghia in Italy and The Sacrifice in Sweden. I’m not going to deny I can absolutely see him coming to America however if for the experience alone. Aside from that, I’m sure there’s going to be some number of screenwriters battering down his door constantly to have their scripts directed by the great Russian. How many of those he accepts – I expect the number won’t be too far north of 0, if that – is up to debate of course.
Graham
February 3, 2021 at 12:36 am
Good point. I assumed you meant the United States when referring to the West, but I agree that remaining in Europe would be a more fruitful career move.
You may be correct that screenwriters would be eager for him to direct their films, but he would certainly accept few, if any.
I agree with Graham here.
Dreyer is the option.
Give me that Jesus movie
I would say that almost everyone had financial difficulties, except for Nolan.
You could also add Kurosawa tried to commit suicide and had a hard time getting funded in the 70s.
It also adds Griffith. I was basically broke after making the best movie of its time.
There are countless options. As for the others, I’m not sure they fit.
Good point with Griffith, he’s a good pick. Made two MPs then done because even though the first one made the money to fill Fort Knox and more the second one failed. Kurosawa, I mean he had had an entire career by that point and even made a comeback in the 80s so I’m not sure much would change there.
But yes, I’d probably shoot for Dreyer over Welles. I mean to the point where the average time between your films is close to 10 years because of how bad your funding is, but the movies are that great anyway, the world would do great with a few more of them. But I don’t see how, say, Cimino doesn’t fit. He made two great films but everyone hated the second one at the time and well that was it. If Heaven’s Gate isn’t so hated at the time then maybe Hollywood would keep riding the idea of him as the next great Italian and he’d keep making great films. Welles of course definitely fits too as I said, given his difficulties with Hollywood. Indeed, however, the big one is probably Dreyer.
It’s… pretty bad. Kicks it off with bashing the auteur theory and implying that great writing is the key to making a masterpiece, and, well, like he said about David Lean, “it’s all downhill from there.”
The list would have a bit of credibility, if it weren’t for putting Scorsese and Hitchcock on the list.
Looks more like an underrated directors list, Aronofsky, Mann, Lean overrated? mmm
I saw one the other day that Nolan beat Hitchcock and Lean in a poll of the best British director.
Wow, what a dismal failure that list is. To add onto its atrociousness, I would also like to point out that he has included no non-English language directors. Is it because he loves international cinema and finds it gloriously underrated or because he’s barely seen any and knows nothing at all about foreign directors? Naturally, we will all gravitate toward the second answer.
I wonder if he would benefit from discovering and exploring this site. At best, he might gain an understanding of the fact that directors do, in fact, have tremendous power over the success of their films, and that there are indeed stylistic elements that each auteur he mentioned uses to create brilliant masterpieces. More likely, he’d be too ignorant to discover much or any of this and would criticize Drake’s admirable and skillful work as pretentious (an useless and overused word) and unengaging.
Hey, Drake! How are you doing? I was wondering what your thoughts are on Chantal Akerman. I love many of her films (especially News from Home, which I think is a MP) but she isn’t on your list. Did she just not make the cut or are you not that familiar with her work? Thanks!
Don’t mean to burst your bubble, but News From Home is a documentary, which Drake doesn’t study. Of course she made fiction films as well, which I cannot comment on.
@pedro- doing well thanks- hopefully you’re doing the same. Good question- it is mostly the latter here– the only film of Akerman’s I’ve seen was Jeanne Dielman and I wasn’t very impressed. I’ve sort of put off seeing any of the others but do have that on my list to hopefully cross off in 2021 here. I don’t do documentaries though (or shorts– so not sure that leaves that much) so I won’t be watching those.
Oh, okay. Thank you, Zane and Drake. If we’re talking just fiction, I really enjoyed Je Tu Il Elle, Toute une nuit and Les Rendez-vous d’Anna. It’s a shame you weren’t impressed with Jeanne Dielman, I loved it. Oh well.
@pedro– are you open to sharing what you loved about Jeanne Dielman? I’ve only seen it once- certainly not willing to write it off.
pedro
February 9, 2021 at 9:01 pm
Certainly. I’m sorry for the delay in my response, I hadn’t seen your question.
I think what is very interesting about Jeanne Dielman is how Akerman crafts (1) a very unique narrative and (2) an extremely distinctive dynamic between the viewer and the film.
(1) Akerman shows us a woman (Jeanne Dielman) who lives in a very robotic way and is controlled/limited by this uneventful routine, and little details here and there are what tie everything together. It’s amazing how, by just showing what actually (and exactly) happens, a narrative can be created. Akerman doesn’t need dramatic events (or even any event at all) to tell us everything we need to know about this character. After all, these are the stories that happen the most in real life.
(2) We, as an audience, are thrown into this impersonal “game” between the camera and the environment, and I love playing it. Akerman challenges us, as an audience, to piece things together for ourselves. We never know for sure, for example, how the rooms in Jeanne’s house are connected. We simply find that out by guessing, by seeing her move from room to room. In a narrative where “””nothing really happens”””, little details become the most important thing. We are at all times looking for something new, a new motion, a new expression, a new scenario, even.
A lot of people call it minimalist, but I, personally, can’t 100% agree with that (it is, at the end of the day, a lengthy movie). I would call it spare. And its obsession with the ordinary (maybe not that ordinary) happenings of an ordinary woman is what turns it into a fascinating film.
My knowledge of film is still very limited, so take this comment with a grain of salt, I’m merely listing what I liked about the movie. Also, I apologize if there are any language mistakes. Thanks!
Drake
February 9, 2021 at 9:19 pm
@pedro- Thank you- appreciate you sharing this here very much
You know, when you update your director’s pages in a few years I was thinking it would be a cool idea if you write about a runner-up, which would be a director’s second best film, especially if they’re two films of the same category (MP, MS, HR). Like La Dolce Vita is as deserving of a mention on Fellini’s page as 8 1/2 and such. Ditto with, say, M and Metropolis, Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet, Seven Samurai and Rashomon, and so forth (and I personally would place Mulholland Drive slightly ahead of Blue Velvet but there’s not much separating them of course; I also probably need to rewatch both this year) And the best film of each director should get their own page going into depth on each film that is then reposted on the full director’s page.
How do you think cinema might change if the Academy Award for Best Unique and Artistic Picture, awarded solely to Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans in 1928 at the 1st Academy Awards and then permanently discarded, were still awarded to this day? Might more avant-garde films receive greater public attention?
@Zane- I like that idea. I have never thought about that before. I’m sort of impressed with the Academy at the moment. I’m choosing to be optomistic- but check out the list of the best director winners: Joon-ho, Cuaron, del Toro, Chazelle, Inarritu, Inarritu, Cuaron… nice streak!
True, but there were three pretty wet farts in the years before that: Tom Hooper over Fincher, Nolan, and Aronofsky, Hazanavicius over Malick, Malick, Malick, Malick, and Malick, and then Ang Lee over the Anderson not-brothers and Tarantino.
@Aldo- It certainly is in some circles- and there have been some very impressive winners. The Golden Lion is right there as well in Venice. I did this exercise with the Palme and Academy Award Winners once year by year and it came out about even– some years they both get it right, some years one is laughably bad, and vice versa. Of course the Palme is only pulling from those who enter where the Oscars can technically pull from the entire field that year.
Drake, in Cannes reward avant-garde films.
What i’m pointing out is that every cinephile knows that the most prestigious award is Cannes.
As you pointed out, films that are not shown cannot win.
Wild at Heart won in Cannes but was not nominated in the others, can you imagine Wild at Heart will be awarded prizes? not me.
They openly choose to ignore these movies.
For example 1978 where an unspectacular movie won (The Knack …and How to Get). Among the competitors is neither Repulsion, Juliet, Pierrot.
And in the other part they weren’t even nominated, i could go on and on.
To top off the superiority of Cannes, la dolce vita won, in the others only was nominated for director and not for film, despite being better than any other nominated film.
Zane
March 7, 2021 at 6:00 am
For a while, foreign-language films could not be nominated for Best Picture. It’s stupid, I know, but it explains why they were not nominated for Best Picture. For example, Cries and Whispers (side note: I think there’s a compelling argument this is Bergman’s best work but for me that’s still Persona), was not nominated for best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars, since Sweden submitted Scenes From a Marriage that year, but it received a Best Picture nomination. La Dolce Vita too, for example, was not submitted by Italy for Best Foreign Language Film, though it not receiving a Best Picture nomination is a pretty serious misstep.
Also, you mean 1965, not 1978. Can’t think of why you wrote 1978 there.
Lastly, Cannes doesn’t always reward truly avant-garde films, per se. Just 95-98% of the time.
Drake
March 7, 2021 at 12:36 pm
@Aldo- I don’t want to make a big thing of it but I mean that’s just not accurate that “every cinephile knows what the most prestigious award is Cannes”. In 2004 Cannes picked Fahrenheit 9/11 over Oldboy and 2046, in 2016 they picked I, Daniel Blake over American Honey, Paterson, The Handmaiden .. in 2008 another embarrassing year…. In 1965 here the year in question, they would have picked Kwaidan, The Ipcress File, The Hill…. As I said, literally half the time the better film is The Oscar winner.
Have you seen nomadland? It’s expected to win best picture and director. It also did won golden lion.
I have mixed feelings about the movie though , but i mostly liked it.
What are some collaborations you would love witness to between two people with different film industry occupations who lived in different eras? Here are some random ideas that drifted into my mind:
Sidney Lumet directing an Aaron Sorkin screenplay
Sven Nykvist shooting a Pawel Pawlikowski film
Buster Keaton starring in a Wes Anderson movie
Thelma Schoonmaker editing a Sam Peckinpah Western
Gregg Toland shooting a Ridley Scott film
John WIlliams scoring a David Lean epic
Juliette Binoche acting in a Carl Theodor Dreyer movie
James Cagney starring as a Martin Scorsese gangster
Paul Thomas Anderson directing a John Huston script
@Graham– haha I love these- all of them intriguing. Sign me up for Sven shooting a Pawlikowski film if I had to pick just one I think.. but really you can’t go wrong
If you were to expand the top 250 directors list where will Jim Sheridan land?He has the three films that he made with Daniel Day-Lewis and In America as well.And do you actually intend to expand this list?
@Anderson – I certainly plan to expand the list of the top 250 directors. It’ll be some time though. I’m not sure where Sheridan would land. I’m sorry I don’t have a better answer. It has been awhile since I’ve had my mind on that project. My guess is it would be between 251-300.
They seem adequate, but there are some issues. First, I’m Thinking of Ending Things acquired absolutely no nominations. That’s awful. It deserves a spot in the races for Best Picture, Director, and Actress at the very least. Mank garnered a sufficient number of nominations, but it bizarrely does not appear in the Editing category. That’s one of its strongest elements.
Nomadland is expected to lead the pack for many of the awards, which is satisfactory to me. It’s a brilliant work.
I wonder if the Academy will ever allow miniseries or anthologies. Small Axe deserves some nominations, but it has been excluded due to its series categorization.
I believe they are referring to John Huston at 102 (this is the directors’ list). I agree that 102 is rather low, but top ten is also rather unthinkable.
@Rick- I admire both– Craven just missed the cut- he’d be between 251-300 most likely. I have work yet to do on finding and watching Russell’s films. I saw a really crappy copy of The Devils years ago that really shouldn’t count. TBD there. Hopefully I’ll be able to locate a few yet in 2021.
Gordon Morrice
December 27, 2021 at 5:06 pm - Reply
Sad not to see Ken Russell on this list. He revolutionized the British film industry in the 1960s and 70s. A truly visionary artist, one of the last great eccentrics of Britain. But Warren Beatty is deemed worthy? Hmm.
He was one of the masters of the “Commedia all’Italiana” ,Comedy Italian Style, and, got 6 nominations at the Academy Awards. He was very local, and I’ll explain why. He got an incredibile body of work, was very prolific from 1935 to 2006 as a director and screenwriter and influenced a lot of modern italian directors. He was consistent in his themes, with a very distinguished look on the human condition, rich with a bittersweet humor mixing tragedy and comedy, altough his cynism can be lost in translation. The Great War, Amici miei and The Girl with the Pistol are his gems for me. He worked with the best Italian Actors of the golden age (Mastroiani, Sordi, Toto, Gassman, Tognazzi, Monica Vitti etc). Here is my point: Monicelli was a story teller more than a visual artist, by choice : he didn’t want to hide the actors behind the frame, didnt want to “show off” . For him his direction was focused to serve the actors and the story, the dialogues. To show the reality as is, without embellishment. Neorelism without the pedagogic intent. But he was not sloppy or uninterested in visual story telling, that was just his artistic, autorial, choice. So to me he checks all the requirements of being in this excellent list, but mostly, I just want to highlight a great career, to maybe entice some fellow movie students to try his cinema. (Small time crooks by woody allen is to me an homage to Monicelli’s Big Deal on Madonna Street. Also I recommend An Average Little Man)
@max- thank you for sharing the knowledge here and the recommendation. I’ve seen Big Deal on Madonna Street but I’m not sure if I’ve seen anything else from him yet.
I just visited the TSPDT page for Chantal Akerman, where a quote describes her as “arguably the most important European director of the ’70s and ’80s.” Yeah right. Andrei Tarkovsky who??? And what about any of the 3 Kaisers of the New German Cinema?
Great list! I discovered this a few months ago and have been using it as a personal guide for what films I plan to watch next. It is an extremely insightful list and you make some excellent points. I especially enjoy the mise en scene shots you include–they are captivating. As someone who is trying to learn more about film history and directing, this has been a major help.
A couple of questions I had: What do you think of Panos Cosmatos? Have you seen his film Mandy from a couple of years ago? I found it to be entrancing. He is certainly a stylistic and distinctive director, to say the least. I realize he has only made a couple of films so far. I was just wondering if you had an opinion on what you’ve seen.
Also, I noticed you didn’t include Stanley Kramer on your list. He has several great films. However, he is not known as a stylistic director and most of his films are dialogue driven. Opinions?
Keep up the great work. I look forward to seeing updates on active directors.
@Scott- thank you for the kind words regarding the website- I’m happy to hear you’ve found it useful. I’m a big admirer of Mandy. I was lucky enough to catch it in theater in 2018 and have been itching to get back to it since… I have a page for it here with my first impressions: http://thecinemaarchives.com/2018/09/18/mandy-2018-cosmatos/
I’ve had Beyond the Black Rainbow on my list to see for quite some time but just have not got around to it yet.
I have seven Stanley Kramer films in the archives (below) which is an impressive number for any director. I’ve seen them multiple times and these are good films. So it isn’t that I think he’s a bad director. He isn’t. But he was one of those “important” directors, racking up a lot of awards and such because of the serious messages in his films– not necessarily because of artistic merit. I just simply think there were many superior directors during that era.
1958- The Defiant Ones
1959- On The Beach
1960- Inherit The Wind
1961- Judgement at Nuremberg
1963- It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
1965- Ship of Fools
1967- Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner
Does anyone know any of the most famous “guilty pleasure” movies of directors? PTA’s love of absolute trash films is well documented, hell he even made an Adam Sandler movie (which is not the same as a movie starring Adam Sandler mind you), in addition to once saying the MCU gets too much hate, and I do believe I remember hearing about David Lynch loving some not-so-well-recieved films as well. On top of those, Stanley Kubrick loved White Men Can’t Jump, and so I’ve heard he died with Kingpin in his DVR. Similarly, Ingmar Bergman was known to have owned Beverly Hills Cop and Anger Management, and Terrence Malick is a huge fan of Zookeeper with Ben Stiller.
@Joe- I have more work to do here. I do have The Seduction of Mimi and Seven Beauties in the archives but it has been so long since I’ve seen them I don’t have a grade for them. I’d have to see them again and have one or both land in the top 100 of the 1970’s for Wertmuller to have a shot on the top 250 list.
I have trouble picking between my top four – Williams, Hermann, Morricone, and Steiner. But for sheer quality and depth of work, I have to go Williams. Jaws, Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back (which introduced the Imperial March), Indiana Jones, Superman – how can you go past a resume like that?
There is a really fantastic podcast called The Soundtrack Show which dedicates several episodes at a time to breaking down the score for different movies. They have covered a lot of those Williams scores I mentioned, but my personal favourite episodes are those on LOTR. He takes a very formalist approach much like Drake to analysing these pieces of music. Very highly recommended.
Yeah, I remember reading about Under The Skin getting the #2 spot on its Wikipedia page or elsewhere. Even then, I’d not go quite that far, I mean the #2 film score of all time? Come on, but I wouldn’t argue with anyone who puts it on their top 50, and I wouldn’t surprise myself if I eventually do so myself. That’s an excellent score.
Had to remove The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance which sadly leaves this list without a Western. I still have a month before the poll is up so there’s a chance I might decide to put one or both of them back on there (Liberty Valance is more likely).
In case any of you are interested, Declan, Graham and I have started a Discord server that Graham recommended I post here: https://discord.gg/KnWvZkCRYB
Out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to place the given name first for Asian directors who do not arrange their names that way? I understand the desire for conformity and don’t find it a huge issue, but Hong Kong’ greatest filmmaker is not named Kar-Wai Wong; he’s Wong Kar-Wai. The same goes for Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Lee Chang-dong, and Zhang Yimou. Most other sites do not refer to them the anglicized way, with the occasional exception of IMDb, a complex database that requires a little more conformity to succeed.
@Graham-Drake uses the iMDB name for these directors. In iMDB he is called Kar-Wai Wong. He also uses in almost all the time the release year for a film according to iMDB. That’s why films like The Assistant and Sound of Metal which feel like 2020 films are listed as 2019 films. I think that is the reason.
Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god. I was on Henry Hathaway’s page on TSPDT when it accidentally glitched out and, instead of giving me just his films, it gave me every single film ever entered into TSPDT! I don’t know if this glitch will work for you, but I was on Google Chrome for iPhones and as I said it was Henry Hathaway’s page.
I know now that the first film on the TSPDT Top 1000 of all time is George Méliès’s A Trip to the Moon, the second and fourth are Louis Feuillade’s Fantômas and Les Vampires (he has the second and fourth films ever on the top 1000 and this guy doesn’t have a page on TSPDT???), the third, fifth and sixth are D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation, Intolerance, and Broken Blossoms, and the seventh is Robert Wiene’s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, followed by such works as Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler and Nosferatu.
The most recent film on the TSPDT All-Time Top 1000 is Toni Erdmann in 2016, but so as not to leave a sour taste in Drake’s mouth I’ll tell him that beyond that are Mad Max: Fury Road, Boyhood, Under the Skin, The Act of Killing, Holy Motors, The Master, Amour, Melancholia, The Tree of Life, Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, A Separation, The Turin Horse, Certified Copy, The Social Network, Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives, and Nostalgia for the Light from the preceding decade.
The first film on the TSPDT 21st Century Top 1000 was Devils on the Doorstep in 2000. The first films on the All-Time Top 1000 from the current century are As I was Moving Ahead I Saw a Glimpse of Beauty, accompanied by In Vanda’s Room, Dancer in the Dark, Werckmeister Harmonies, The Gleaners and I, Songs From the Second Floor, In the Mood for Love, Amores perros, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Yi Yi, Code Unknown, Memento, Platform, and Requiem for a Dream in 2000; quite a lineup. The most recent film currently on the TSPDT 21st Century list is City Hall, immediately preceded by Shirley.
@Zane- I, also, was disappointed about the news of the “big” movie today. I thought Cannes had a big 2019 comeback (obviously no show in 2020) but had been losing ground to the fall festivals (Venice, Toronto) prior to 2019.
I started doing my own version of Director Studies, so far Orson Welles, Wong Kar Wai, and finishing up Vittorio De Sica.
I’m trying to decide next between these 3 choices:
1. Francis Ford Coppola
2. David Fincher
3. Jean Luc Godard
Feel Free to weigh in
I did the same thing myself haha, started with Tarkovsky then did Bergman and WKW, did a belated journey into Godard that I got about 9 films into and just haven’t continued for some reason, and I’ve done brief visits into Welles, Fellini, Hawks, and Kalatozov that I may pick back up, and I’m now considering Bunuel, Renoir, Dreyer, Bresson and a few others (leaning Bunuel but not by much) and I don’t know where to go anymore at this point as I’ll be really busy these next few weeks.
I’d personally recommend you go with Godard, I was really amazed by what I found in his filmography and it changed how I feel about him. I used to judge him mostly by some of his opinions about cinema which are very questionable and by a lot of what he’s been doing from Weekend onwards but his work before that is something truly exceptional and I’d describe A Woman is a Woman, Vivre Sa Vie, Contempt (especially this), Band of Outsiders, Pierrot le Fou, Alphaville, and Weekend as some of my favorite films now, and I even quite like Made in USA which Declan sadly hated. That being said my recent viewing of The Conversation was an absolute stunner, should end up well in the top 100 if nothing changes and there’s a great argument that you should pick Coppola instead.
You really inspire me to study De Sica who alongside Rossellini I’ve been looking at lately. I hate that I’ve only seen Bicycle Thieves so far as it’s so good and 5 months on I’ve seen nothing else.
@Zane – thanks for weighing in, yeah I think I’m leaning toward Coppola but will ultimately cover Godard, Fincher, and others.
Yeah, I strongly suggest De Sica, I’ve made a few posts on the De Sica page. Umberto D. is definitely a masterpiece near the level of Bicycle Thieves in my opinion. He’s versatile though and has some lighter comedy material as well which still is in the style of Neorealism. Sophie Loren and Marcello Mastroianni do some great work in the later De Sica films.
Hmm I wouldn’t say I hated Made in USA. I’ve seen it twice now and gave it a Recommend, which may be underrating it compared to Drake’s HR/MS, but still isn’t really hate.
Declam, who are you? I was talking to an individual by the name of Declan, with an n at the end.
Jokes aside, I did not actually see you gave it a second watch. But the first time, which I did notice, you did not archive it, which is what I was talking about here.
Decla (last letter TBC)
June 8, 2021 at 12:58 am
Haha all good, I wrote that about 5 minutes after waking up this morning hence the mistake. I’m giving the higher ratings you and Drake gave it the benefit of the doubt since you both watched it as part of Godard studies. I haven’t ruled out moving it higher, hopefully I’ll come round on it (and First Name Carmen) when I do my own proper Godard study.
Grahan
June 8, 2021 at 3:14 am
In fact, Mr. Green and I have participated in an official letter swap; he will henceforth be legally documented as Declam, and I as Grahan. Substituting letters in one’s name with another being of the same species is the first step instrumental in reaching the evolutionary state necessary for consideration by the Monolith to evolve a life form into the Star Child heavenly form.
I recently completed a Roy Andersson study comprising Songs from the Second Floor; You, the Living; A Pigeon Sat on a Branch Reflecting on Existence; and About Endlessness. It was my first real “study,” and I would highly recommend that you venture through it as well if you haven’t seen any of his films. It’s a relatively short investment of time and I think those four movies probably work best when placed together.
I just checked him on TSPDT (I’ve been to his page here a few times) and I must say he has great taste with his favorite films being Amarcord, Andrei Rublev, Barry Lyndon, Bicycle Thieves, and Rashomon. I’ve been interested in his films for a little while due to the interesting look of his films so he’s an idea I might try, but I’ll put him on the list for now.
After finishing my second viewing of every wes Anderson film (i have seen grand Budapest 10+ times) I was thinking about great filmmakers with great visual style who are also equally great writers with specific style of writing. Here’s my take (I’m not including Kubrick, Coppola and Welles. They are excellent writers but are even better filmmakers)
1. Coen brothers
2. Wes Anderson
3. Paul Thomas Anderson
4. Woody Allen
5. Tarantino
What are your thoughts on it? Am I missing someone? I would love everyone to participate.
Great collection – you have included many I would include. I think Bergman is a clear omission. His visual style is obviously great (faces, tight close-ups, stark imagery, strict color design), and his thematic screenwriting (thoughtful monologues interspersed with silences, internal crises, spiritual uncertainties) is masterful too. Godard is a possible choice as well. His storywriting and plot construction are not necessarily perfect, but he is a master of clever, subversive dialogue and a style that seems both brilliantly conscientious and nonchalantly careless.
Wilder is arguably an even greater screenwriter than any of these people, but his cinematic style is not as rigid. Antonioni has the opposite strength. Due to recent events (a.k.a. I’m Thinking of Ending Things), I’d say Kaufman is a worthy choice, but perhaps he has not done enough direction to solidify a particular visual style.
It is difficult to determine the eligibility of filmmakers whose greatest scripts were co-written by other people, such as Welles, Coppola, Fellini, Kubrick, and more.
That’s great that you’ve seen Grand Budapest more than ten times haha; it is an all-time favorite of mine.
Bergman and godard are excellent. I was also thinking Mike Leigh, baumbach and gerwig.
Agreed about wilder. Kaufman and Schrader are 2 of the writer turned filmmakers who are navigating excellently (unlike Sorkin).
Agreed on these guys as well.
Grand Budapest is one of my favorite as well.
God we are on same page about everything.
Are there any directors you’d prefer to transplant to another place or time? Perhaps a contemporary director who could create greater cinema in the silent era, or an old director who would benefit from the advent of current technology and more elaborate special effects and sets? How about an American who would succeed better in the international cinema world, or a foreign director who would be better off in high-profile Hollywood? Is there a director from the black and white era or digital cinema age who deserves large-format Technicolor, or vice versa?
@Graham- I’d certainly like to see Welles today. I think he’d have an easier time getting at least a little bit of money for his passion projects. This is where my head goes immediately with this question. Guys like Sam Fuller. Perhaps I’m wrong though. What do you think? I’d love to see Kalatozov with less political restrictions and just an unlimited budget too.
Welles is a great suggestion, and Kalatozov perhaps an even better one. The weightless camera movement, crane shot, and canted-angle close-up loving Russian master was certainly able to push beyond his propagandist obligations to become a stylistically free and untethered auteur. Nonetheless, one must wonder what he could craft without the hindrance of political duties. I bet he’d make a formidable competitor to Cuaron as far as rapid movement long-shot/creative mise-en-scenists go.
One has to wonder how Griffith might fare in more recent times. Of course, I wouldn’t want to remove the massive influence he had on cinema’s future in the 1910s, so let’s assume there’s someone else to carry that duty in the hypothetical. If Griffith could clean up his racial opinions or change them entirely, I think he’d benefit from fewer budget constraints, better sets, the possibility of sound, and a larger audience appetite for massive scale and scope within the age of epics (1955-65 or so).
Eisenstein is a possibility for time period boosting whose reasons lay almost halfway between Kalatozov and Griffith: the possibility for more elaborate film production like D.W., and the necessity to escape Leninist political ideals like Mikhail.
We could try to move around some of the directors who died early, such as Tarkovsky, Murnau, and Fassbinder, to see if modern lifestyle or life in a different country could keep them alive for a bit longer, but perhaps that wouldn’t have much effect.
Controversial directors would be more comfortable in a more recent time where their subjects would not be so touchy. Perhaps Pasolini a few decades later would help? Powell may seem old-timey by today’s standards, but the taboo undertones of Black Narcissus and Peeping Tom would be better understood in a less restrained time.
Some directors would be nice to see in the 1940s-50s noir period, though I’m not sure they necessarily need to move. I’m referring to people like David Fincher, Fritz Lang, or Jean-Pierre Melville. Perhaps Damien Chazelle would be a little happier living in the 1950s Technicolor time? I’m not sure.
Kurosawa was more respected in the United States than in Japan, so I wonder if he could succeed better working here. Perhaps we’d have more fruitful work from him during the 1970s period in which he nearly ended his life.
At first glance, Roy Andersson seems a prime choice for transplanting to some earlier time: he does not need modern technology like digital cameras or a Steadicam; people in the past were more tolerant of slower films and physical comedy; his production design does not include especially modern looking props or design; and his characters toil through timeless struggles. However, for a certain reason, I think Andersson is actually living at precisely the right time. I wrote a comment that no one saw on his page describing differences between Roy and comparable auteurs, and I will reiterate what I said about Tati’s primary difference: Tati’s movies were about the birth of modernism, and the resulting frenetic confusion, while Andersson’s are about the death of modernism, and the resulting melancholic stagnancy. That wouldn’t have the same devastating effect in the past.
There are some directors who seem essentially timeless, and could succeed at any time. Hitchcock lands squarely in the category, as there have always been people with a ravenous appetite for intelligent thrillers. Wes Anderson in some ways seems very modern and groundbreaking, but a part of me would love to walk into a theater in 1920 and see a double feature of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and a version of The Grand Budapest Hotel. One half of the brain could comment on clear similarities such as great set design, seminal composition, and entertaining and twisted narrrative, while the other half could notice large differences, such as the lopsided world vs the symmetricality, the oblique angles vs the crisp parallel lines, and the dramatic thriller vs the deadpan comedy. Bela Tarr is completely timeless in terms of his themes, but I wonder if he’d suffer without the modern Steadicam. He might replace the role of Murnau back in the twenties; I wonder if it would actually be advantageous to swap their places so Murnau was current and Tarr a silent film master.
In some ways, it’s actually more interesting to discuss the people that shouldn’t be transplanted. For example, Christopher Nolan seems so fervorously modern, so inextricably linked to special effects, the Hollywood blockbuster structure, and contemporary complexity. How would he fare as a silent 1920s Polish indie director? Could he successfully adapt to such a circumstance, or would we lose his greatness?
@Graham Well thought out. Especially liked your points about Wes, Nolan and Roy Andersson. I think that maybe John Frankenhaimer would have thrived if he stared later (although this way he wouldn’t have extensive tv experience and if I remember correctly he had a lot of personal problems in the 70’s and 80’s). And maybe Tod Browning? If I understand correctly, he suffered due to censorship.
Soviet directors are an interesting case. Because sure, I would love to see what they can do without ideological constrains, but on the other hand Hollywood would put another set of limitations on them. Like, I really cannot imagine Hollywood making Come and See in the form we received(maybe Europe could be great artistic/commercial compromise, especially in the 60s).
Also, many Soviet directors found interesting and creative ways to subvert these restrictions, which is precisely what made their movies great.
Oh, I remembered another one, Jules Dassin. I wish he wasn’t blacklisted. He was on such a roll in the second half of forties. And as far critical opinion goes, he wasn’t great after Rififi (I haven’t seen myself movies after Rififi yet). On the other hand, we lose Rififi and maybe Night and the City, which hurts.)))
@Gustavo Mello- Not really well enough. I have seen Black God, White Devil- but it has been 15 years or so and the copy of the version I saw wasn’t ideal
If you have time to check out his movies.
He is the greatest director in Brazil and has been highly praised by directors such as Scorsese, Pasolini and Bong Joon-ho.
I would like to know if he would have a space on that list.
@Gustavo Mello- Absolutely- he and his work are very well respected. I do have a poor transfer dvd copy of Black God, White Devil but as I said have been holding out to find something better.
Drake, if there was a scenario where “Mr. Y” had directed The Searchers (currently number one on your all-time films list) and it’s the only film he had ever directed, and “Mr. X” had directed Nosferatu The Vampyre (currently number 500 on your all-time films list) and it’s the only film he had ever directed. About where would “Mr. Y” rank on the list and where would “Mr. X” rank?
@RK- interesting hypothetical. So the Mr. X question is easy to answer- Mr. X wouldn’t be one of the top 250 directors on the list. Mr. Y is more difficult. I’d say between 80-100 maybe? There would be other small factors so it’s hard to determine. It wouldn’t be the same as like Falconetti on the female list (#27)
@RK – I asked a similar question on the Francis Ford Coppola page, only I asked where would he would be ranked if he had only directed 3 films, The 1st and 2nd Godfather and Apocalypse Now and Drake said somewhere between 20-35, so around 27 would be the middle of that range. Woody Allen is number 27 and he has 33 archivable films including several MPs so that shows the power of huge MPs like Godfather level films.
Why Thomas Vinterberg isn`t part of the list?
Because he is much better then, for example Tom Hopper or Jeff Nichols.
He wouldn`t be in top 100, but he should be in top 250.
Archivable movies:
The Celebration
The Hunt
Another Round
@RujK- Well for one this page was written before Another Round was released. I think Vinterberg has an argument over Tom Hooper or Jeff Nichols- but they’re in the same class, even with Another Round. “Much better” feels like a reach.
Hi, Drake. Following Mad Mike’s comment… maybe it’s just for me, but I think there are issues with both Bi Gan pages you have (Kaili Blues and Long Day’s Journey Into Night). On my phone it works fine, but on desktop there’s no content for some reason.
I’ve mentioned this before but you have to see Angelopoulos. The Travelling Players is available in the Stremio app with subtitles, so is Alexander the Great in the best quality you can find them. Probably his two most well known films, Landscape in the Mist and Eternity and a Day, are also available. He’s probably one of the handful masters left you haven’t gotten into.
@James Trapp- for sure, on my short list– I just finished Michael Mann so was thinking of maybe doing one or two directors between the two from a different genre
He’s not quite a heavy hitter so I can’t say I’m surprised he’s missing from this list, but William A Wellman has a pretty sturdy resume with Wings, The Public Enemy, and The Ox-Bow Incident, all of which are in the top 10 of their respective years. Since he isn’t in the top 250, he surely wouldn’t be that far below the threshold right?
@Declan- I just know he wasn’t in the next 10-15 after 250. The resume is very solid (below)
1927- Wings HR
1931- Public Enemy HR
1933- Wild Boys of the Road R
1937- A Star Is Born R
1937- Nothing Sacred R
1942- The Ox-Box Incident HR
1948- Yellow Sky R
1949- Battle Ground R
1954- The High and the Mighty
1954- Track of the Cat R
1955- Blood Alley R
Also, any thoughts on Claude Chabrol and Koreeda? For interest, were any of Stephen Frears, Neil Jordan or Jim Sheridan close? Shane Meadows or Bruno Dumont? Thanks
I watched a fun podcast on Quentin Tarantino from The Ringer (link below), it’s a site that follows both sports and pop culture including films. In the podcast three of the writers on the site talk Tarantino and make there top 5 lists for him. Around the 8:20 mark (podcast is 65 min) one of the site’s writers, Chris Ryan, says that Tarantino movies always feel like a national holiday. He said they feel like an event in a way that is different from any other filmmaker. This got me thinking, which director do you get the most excited for? I think this is a different question than who is your favorite filmmaker or who do you think is the best; of course it’s possible that you could pick the same director to all 3 of these questions.
For me:
Best Living Director: Martin Scorsese
Favorite Living Director: Martin Scorsese
Director Most Excited For: Quentin Tarantino with Scorsese and Fincher not far behind
@James Douglas- Thank you for visiting the site and the comment. What’s the case for De Toth? I have a few films in the archives but maybe there is something I haven’t seen but should.
@JustPassingBy- That would be a fun exercise. It would take some work. I do have this for a start for the 2010s http://thecinemaarchives.com/2020/01/21/the-10-best-directors-of-the-2010s/. Of course this omits a few that would show up in the conversation for sure like Haneke, WKW, The Dardennes…. but PTA, Wes, Cuaron, Nolan, Fincher, Tarantino also had a strong 2000s as well. Roy Andersson would be there.
@JustPassingBy – I think Nolan might have the strongest case since all of his major work was made in the 21st Century. He has 3 definite MPs with The Dark Knight, Inception, and Dunkirk plus Memento, Interstellar, and Dark Knight Rises which are not quite MPs but still very strong
With PTA you have to exclude 2 of his huge MPS in Boogie Nights and Magnolia.
With Tarantino you take away Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown
With Fincher there is no Seven or Fight Club
JustPassingBy
November 28, 2021 at 6:53 pm - Reply
I am writing down a watchlist of 500 directors, but I need around 20 more names, so if anybody knows any talented obscure or underrated directors, I will be happy to hear about them.
@RK- thank you for reply, but I already put him on the list. It`s funny, I put him on the list yesterday when I was just looking around with which directors work Ugo Tognazzi and then I saw that Ferreri directed The Grand Bouffe so I put him on the list.
What are your thoughts on Lina Wertmüller? I think she was one of italian cinema’s most underrated auteurs. Not sure if you’ve archived any of her work but she is a very interesting and unique artist.
I am a film student and recently took a screenwriting class with the biggest anti-auteurist of them all. He literally started off the class with a powerpoint saying “the auteur theory is a bunch of bullshit”, can you believe that? I understand a screenwriter may take issue with “auteur” as a term (his argument was that such a theory discredits his own work and I guess that makes it more personal to him) but his insistence that films owe so much to their scripts, I simply couldn’t disagree with more.
My interpretation has always been that auteur theory certainly doesn’t apply to all films, only to those select artists that are clearly the ones driving the ship. His continuous discrediting of film style was incredibly frustrating to listen to as well, he often likened it to theater (he said “you never want to leave the theater remembering the costumes”)….as if the visual arts are not a massive part of…..watching a film? It was so frustrating to sit through.
definitely but it says more about his own credibility and taste than anything. keep doing what you’re doing with this fantastic site! I appreciate how much thought is put into your lists and reviews. I really have a feeling this site will have an impact on future young cinephiles in helping them discover the great works and cultivate their own tastes.
@Zane – Andrei Tarkovsky directing a screwball comedy…just kidding
Scorsese directing a Western would be interesting, The Searchers is a huge influence on Taxi Driver. I think the types of themes Scorsese often worked with, characters particularly males seeking various forms of personal redemption would make for an interesting film. Also, Gangs of New York has elements of a Western and even though it’s not my favorite of his films I think it showed promise early on but had some flaws that were hard to overcome (miscast characters being one).
Tarantino making a straight up Horror film would be interesting as he is so effective at taking classic genres and adding his own flavor, he’s done work in so many genres; Samurai, Heist, blaxploitation, gangster, western, and you could argue war with Inglorious even if it is very different from any other war film. A straight up Horror would be exciting.
btw Visconti directed The Leopard which is not exactly a war film per se but takes place during a war and there is some violence in the streets but I assume you mean a more standard war film, I agree that would be interesting.
Senso is set during the Second Italian War of Independence and, while they’re far from the focus of the film, the few battle scenes it has are really something to behold. I’d have adored to have seen Visconti make a Napoleon biopic or something (I know Kubrick was planning one but I’d rather have him still get sidetracked and end up making Barry Lyndon instead while Visconti makes Napoleon).
You make me wonder what a Mikhail Kalatozov screwball comedy would look like with the camera backflipping around in every scene.
@Zane – Another that comes to mind would be Terence Malick making a disaster/apocalypse film. The Tree of Life depicts with absolutely stunning images the birth of the universe and earth. And then after that the beginning of life on earth with dinosaurs. I think Malick making a film like this makes sense not only because of the spectacular imagery but it also fit with Malick’s frequent themes regarding the indifference of nature to mankind or as Nick Nolte’s character in The Thin Red Line tells the Elias Koteas character “nature is cruel Staros”.
Hi Drake. Huge fan of the site. When do you think you will make a Best of 2020 & 2021 list? Are you waiting for more films to make it into the archives before you start on that? Just wondering since I really enjoy your Best of the Year lists.
Also, what did you think of Licorice Pizza? I liked it a lot, as well as the youthful vibe and ’70s California atmosphere, but thought it was far from PTA’s best. Not as stylistic as Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood, Punch Drunk, etc.
Though now that I think about it, the arcade scene had great mise en scene. I may need another viewing to fully appreciate it, but I did enjoy a lot of it
@Scott- Thanks for the comment– glad you like the site. So I put up 2016 today and it takes me about a week to do each page so I’m only a few weeks away from doing 2020 and 2021. I had plans to get there already but fell behind. I saw Licorice Pizza in theater a December. I am very excited to get to it again but would agree it seem far from PTA’s best (certainly not an insult) upon first blush.
Did you make this list before you had seen The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari? Surprised not to see Robert Wiene with a masterpiece of that caliber (your #56 film of all time) Admittedly I haven’t seen any of his other work, but I know The Hands of Orlac is highly regarded, and surely these fellows at the bottom with zero top 100 films of their respective decades can’t have a better case?
What are some directors that died way too young with maybe just one feature film or two, but they already found their style and had very promising start?
Of course first one should be Jean Vigo, but I would like to mention Sadao Yamanaka- I saw Humanity and Paper Balloons and been pretty blown away (I gave it MS after one viewing), it’s a stunning visual and formal achievement. I wrote in my notes “if Yamanaka didn’t die so young, he would be mentioned in the same sentences as Ozu and Mizoguchi”.
Are there are any directors who you believe stuck too much to one genre, topic, mood, or aesthetic? Perhaps they should have branched out more?
For example, many wish Kalazatov had been able to veer away from Soviet propagandistic messages and stories. Another is Leone. Although the spaghetti western genre served him perfectly, his triumph with Once Upon a Time in America leads me to believe there are other historical periods at which he should have tried his skillful hand.
There are probably better answers to this question than the ones I have given. Does anyone have ideas?
@Graham- my answer is probably Hitchcock- he was always staying in this crime thriller genre (he was doing variations of it with combining elements of romance, comedy and horror). I would really like to see some more straight forward genre films from- imagine how dominant he would be as the best director of all time together with having masterful filmography and wonderful style, he would be a genre master like Kubrick or Hawks- I think that nobody else could even challenge him as the best of all time.
What are your thoughts on William Dieterle? I think he is a style-minus director worthy of being somewhere in top 500.
This is what I have seen of his filmography for now:
The Story of Louis Pasteur- R
The Life of Emile Zola- R
The Hunchback of Notre Dame- R
The Devil and Daniel Webster- HR
Portrait of Jeanne- HR
Sounds about right- I didn’t make it all the way to 500 on my list- but there was never a real consideration in the top 250 (or about the 50 names I had kicking around putting those together) and style minus is correct. Below is what I have so far.
1935- A Midnight Summer’s Dream R
1937- The Life of Emile Zola
1939- Juarez R
1939- The Hunchback of Notre Dame
1948- Portrait of Jennie HR
1950- Dark City R
@Drake- on you 1936 page you have The Story of Louis Pasteur as HR level film. What are the reasons for that? I have it as a very solid R with one great Muni performance.
@RujK- Thank you for the help here. It has been 15-20 years since my last viewing so I would have to confirm- but I believe just superior acting and writing
I would switch Tarkovsky and Kubrick, put Scorsese, Truffaut, Renoir, Ford 10-15 spots down. I think Woody Allen is criminally overrated, 0 style all talk in his films. I would switch Rossellini and Visconti. Kieslowski continues to be criminally underrated in most places, he is easily top 10. Bresson should be at least top 20. Chaplin at 80 is way to low although he is overrated in most places, you just went too far. Aronofsky is way too high. Huston and Forman are too low. Resnais and Rohmer should both be at least 100 spots higher.
2022 is one of the years where you have two directors of the top 250 making and releasing the same film. Zemeckis and Del Toro with Pinocchio.It’s strange though considering Zemeckis is the one with the background in animation that he isn’t the one making the animating one though.
Have you watched films of Wojciech Has and what do you think about him?
I just watched The Saragossa Manuscript and The Hourglass Sanatorium and like them very much. Compared to the directors on your list I had watched, I think he was similar to and at the same level of Jodorowsky.
@Joshua- Not sure when on anything yet on this point. Hit a bit of a slowdown here this summer. But my guess is the updating will come faster this fall. I am not sure I’ll ever go back to individual film reviews/pages- but my project will be to finish the acting updates, then update the top 500 films and make it top 1000 films– and then only after that would updating the director 250 take place. So that feels like it’ll be some time yet.
“but my project will be to finish the acting updates“ is that for just the female side or will you update the male side of things after you’re done with the females?
@Matthew- Yes- the plan would be to do them in tandem, or one after the other and sort of the original plan was it would be fun to update them every five years- and that’s just about how it is going to end up I think.
Hey Drake, wanted to let you know how much I appreciate this site. I started getting into film pretty heavily close to 3 years (right around when I discovered this site) and I can confidently say that there is no way I would be anywhere near as into it as I am right now without this site. It’s my passion and could be the career path I take. Not only for opening my eyes to the more nuanced and technical side of filmmaking, but also for essentially being my cinema tour guide, haha. Whenever I’m in the mood to watch something I’ll open this website and pick something off of your top 500, or use your director/actor rankings to explore the works of the very best. It’s specifically led me to doing studies of directors/actors that I would have otherwise likely never found. Usually how it works is I’ll pick a film in your top 500, love it and want more of it, then look up your director page for whoever directed that film and use that to guide me through their filmography (and subsequently love the performances of actors in those films, look up their actor page and then explore their other films). This site is super conventional and doing great things for the film community. It’s clear a lot of love, time and passion goes into this website so just wanted to let you know the impact it’s had on me, and I’m sure many others. I hope more and more discover it. I’ve always lurked and observed discussions but never got around to participating. I plan on changing that as there are always some really great discussions going on.
@Harry – Thank you- feels good to hear this so thanks. I look at some of the earlier pages on the site and I cringe at times- but I have enjoyed working on the site and thank you for the kind words, your comments and for visiting the site.
@Matthew – this blog runs off WordPress and I believe they take profile pictures from Gravatar which I signed into with on another wordpress site after setting a Gravatar profile picture.
I only have a Gravatar account in the first place because when I signed up for letterboxd years ago it was the only way to get a profile picture on that site.
@Matthew- Wow- how nice of you Matthew- thank you. I certainly appreciate the comment here and you visiting the site. I look forward to see your comments and hear your thoughts in the future.
Sorry for the late(r) response. And no problem, you’ve put an absolutely incredible amount into this website, you should know how helpful the work you’ve put it has been.
@Matthew- haha- tough. He’s at least lower than Ridley Scott. I have my eyes on that 115-119 Peter Jackson, James Whale, King Vidor, Carol Reed, Victory Fleming area. That’s a big range- but that’s just eyeballing it here without breaking out all my old metrics and charts.
I figured that Reed would kind of be the floor here and he’s #118. Now, The Searchers isn’t my #1 (that would go to Space Odyssey) but using the guise of Ford having the #1 film ever, I think I would give him the edge over Reed. The Third Man is obviously a mega Masterpiece, but it’s not THE greatest film ever. And I’m not sure 2 HRs and several Rs would make up for that gap. Also, for what it’s worth (and I do think this is worth something) I think The Searchers’ brilliance is due larger in part to Ford than The Third Man is to Reed, if that makes sense.
On the other hand I’m not exactly sure what the ceiling is. Ridley Scott is certainly a hard stop for this hypothetical Ford, like you said. Looking at the grades for the backend of the top 100, I definitely think a strong argument can be made for this Ford to be in that range. But I haven’t gotten into those directors filmography’s yet, so I could be wrong, just eye balling it based off of your grades. Thanks for the response
I watched two Joseph Losey films today and definitely feel like he should be on this list around the 100-130 range.
The Servant – MP
Mr. Klein – MS
Mr. Klein is so excellent and completely by mood and atmosphere above all else, I do think it could be a masterpiece at 90-100 minutes but as it is it is a very worthy film that carries its mystery throughout and packs many very impressive shots. The overall tone is so haunting. Alain Delon has lost his looks but shows that isn’t all that made him a legendary actor in the first place, he’s great for this icy but deep down terrified character.
The Servant impressed me even more. It’s my favourite creepy London apartment film of the 1960s. Losey pulls off many creative and inspired compositions and everything in the narrative is so well setup formally. Bogarde blew me away too, one of the most talented actors ever to my mind.
Consistent sense of dread, mystery and dark atmosphere between these two so I can see a consistent style.
Would like to see more from him, he has a few more collaborations with Dirk Bogarde I will track down but for now I am very impressed with Losey and this is my case.
@Harry – I have posted about Mr. Klein on the 1970s page and the 1976 page. Very impressive indeed, to me it’s a MP. I just noticed the Servant on this months additions to the Criterion Channel so very excited to get to that. You are absolutely correct on the mood and atmosphere carrying the film. It reminds me Polanski’s The Tenant which interestingly came out the same year, 1976. It is kafkaesque in mood and plot.
It is also another monster performance from Delon who by my count plays the lead in 3 MPs
1. Le Samurai
2. Le Cercle Rouge
3. Mr. Klein
He’s also a main character in 2 other MPs
1. Rocco and His Brothers
2. The Leopard
@James – Good to hear. I do think the Tenant is quite stronger but I feel like Mr. Klein would get better with each viewing too.
Have also started a mini Melville study this week so should be getting to Le Cercle Rouge and rewatching Le Samourai (caught this when I was younger and thought it was very boring but ready to be completely wrong now).
@Harry- thanks for sharing- especially how specific you are in the praise of these films. I’ll have to knock The Servant nearer to the front of my list for a revisit.
Excellent list. I’d put Kurosawa right at the top (1, 2, or 3). But other than that the only omission that struck me as odd was Hirokazu Koreeda not making the list at all. He’s one of the best directors working today.
@Logan Thank you for visiting the site and for the comment here. Many cinephiles and critics would agree with you on Hirokazu Koreeda. I’ve missed things and been wrong before- so it certainly could be happening here- but I have not found the evidence in his films to support putting Hirokazu Koreeda on this list.
@Matt – so this is a few years old- August of 2020. I have a few other projects I want to get to first before updating the directors list and pages. In the past I have not kept the original list up after I make the updates.
Gotcha, I look forward to the next update. It would be cool if you archived past iterations of you list so people can see how it’s changes through the years.
@Matt- It is a good idea- but part of me doesn’t really want to showcase how wrong I was in the past- haha. Once it is fixed, I’d rather just focus on the updated list.
Matt
November 1, 2022 at 6:39 pm
I get that. Lol. It might just be me, but I kind of use this site as a road map to exploring the directors that I haven’t gotten to. So I really appreciate all the hard work you’ve put into this. I also think the other parts of this website are brilliant as well. It’s awesome to have a reference like this to help access areas of cinema that I’m unfamiliar with.
Drake
November 1, 2022 at 9:45 pm
@Matt- My pleasure- really appreciate you coming to the site, commenting, and the kind words here. Thank you.
When I first started grading films and documenting it on a spreadsheet (about 3 1/2 years ago) I posted a
column for grades by viewing # with a grade for each time I watched before just deciding to post my most updated score instead. I think there is a potential benefit in documenting grades by viewing but it starts to get a little overwhelming. What I have noticed however, is that generally speaking most films improve or stay the same with each additional viewing. If I had to guess I would say only like 1 of every 15 or of every 20 movies goes down, just my experience so far.
To the people, what does a list of the best cinematographers look like?
Vittio Storaro
Emanuel Lubezki
Giuseppe Rotunno
Gordon Willis
Christopher Doyle
Nicolas Roeg
Asakazu Nakai
Sergei Urusevsky
Sven Nykvist
Roger Deakins
Robert Richardson
Larry Smith
WIth some of those names, I’m not sure how much credit they deserve, they might just be in the right place at the right time – but regardless they do have an incredible catalog. Certainly the best went on to do great work with multiple directors which is clear proof of their prowess.
I’ve started tracking the best cinematography, writing, editing, and music scoring of each year which has been enlightening in seeing which names keep coming up. You’ve got a solid list there already but I feel that you have to add Emmanuel Lubezki to that list, and maybe Hoyte van Hoytema if we’re talking about more modern cinematographers. Kieslowski’s DOP Slawomir Idziak deserves a shoutout too, and the recent retrospective of James Wong Howe films on the criterion channel has really made me realise how distinctive of a style he has with his deep focus cinematography (Sweet Smell of Success, Seconds, Hud, Yankee Doodle Dandy). I may start publishing a list like yours once I’ve covered a broad enough range.
Now that Akerman has the #1 film on the Sight & Sound list, would love to see her represented in your top-250 directors. Maybe a re-evaluation of Jeanne Dielman too? She’s a top-100 director by my methodology, and the 2nd highest ranked director who is unranked on your list.
@Kyle B- Thank you for the comment. Always looking to see if there is something I’ve missed- Akerman and Jeanne Dielman included. Perhaps an Akerman study in 2023 is a good idea.
@Harry Oh, I saw it 10 or 12 years ago. Have you had a chance to see it? My decision not to archive it has as much to do with the category it belongs in as anything else – perhaps “experimental”. It certainly is not a documentary film- but if you’ve seen it I mean it uses duration as a tool as much or more than any film (at least that I’ve seen I’ve seen- and I have not seen any of the Andy Warhol experiments where he just shoots at static for hours on end). Anyways, I’m up for revisiting it- and if if the film warrants it- reevaluating- but needless to say I did not find much to praise – artistically – when I caught it the first time.
@James Trapp- Fun study- I was able to catch seven of his films from late August to late September and added all seven the the archives. Certainly seven films is not exhaustive- always on the lookout for more.
@James Trapp- sorry- must have missed this- yes, three films: Gate of Flesh, Tokyo Drifter, and Branded to Kill
James Trapp
December 21, 2022 at 5:31 pm
@Drake – no worries, I just looked over my grades and can’t believe I saw most of them in 2019, time flies! But I’ve seen his two best multiple times, roughly I have:
Branded to Kill – MP
Tokyo Drifter – MS
Youth of the Beast – HR
Take Aim at the Police Van – HR
Gate of Flesh – R/HR
Fighting Elegy – R
Everything Goes Wrong – R
Drake
December 21, 2022 at 5:54 pm
@James Trapp- Great work here- and yes, time flies indeed. How are you doing on your 2022 viewing? Anything outside of the usual suspects I should be seeking out to see that caught your eye so far this year?
James Trapp
December 21, 2022 at 6:32 pm
I think I need some time to absorb the shock wave, but I just watched Barbarian (2022) from Zach Cregger last night. Someone on this site, I think Matthew, mentioned it so I decided to check it out and it is wild. I think I will need a 2nd viewing to better gage the quality of the filmmaking, will probably do that tonight since I only rented it from Amazon, but I was blown away by the suspense and story. Speak no Evil from Danish director and screenwriter Christian Tafdrup is a Danish 2022 film I watched a couple months ago that is worth checking out. Park Chan Wook Decision to Leave is finally on MUBI and I’ve watched twice in last couple weeks, its phenomenal. Other than that I have not seen a ton from 2022 aside from the obvious ones like Blonde. Been mainly going through the director studies. After Hawks I’m going to do a (mini) study for Robert Siodmak focusing on his American Noirs then Speilberg and after that not sure.
Drake
December 21, 2022 at 7:53 pm
@James Trapp- Good stuff here- I just wasn’t sure how much you mixed in the new stuff with your director studies. Thanks for sharing.
Harry
December 21, 2022 at 6:57 pm
@James – when are you getting on letterboxd?
KidCharlemagne
December 19, 2022 at 11:36 am - Reply
1/ Stanley Kubrick
2/ Martin Scorsese
3/ Alfred Hitchcock
4/ John Ford
5/ Akira Kurosawa
6/ Federico Fellini
7/ Andrei Tarkovsky
8/ Francis Ford Coppola
9/ Orson Welles
10/ Ingmar Bergman
# 1 Stanley Kubrick
# 2 Alfred Hitchcock
# 3 Martin Scorsese – My personal favorite, I think Scorsese may overtake the #2 spot
# 4 Akira Kurosawa
# 5 Orson Welles
# 6 Francis Ford Copolla – only Scorsese can match his top 3
# 7 Terence Malick – Badlands is merely his 5th best film
# 8 Francois Truffaut – probably not here without the glorious Antoine Doinel series
# 9 Andrei Tarkovsky
# 10 PT Anderson (recent rewatches of The Master have put him into top 10)
I need to do a more in depth viewing for Fellini and Bergman but I am fairly comfortable with this for now
I’m not nearly as much of a film buff like some of you guys, but here’s my top 10 anyway, probably very subjective.
1. Martin Scorsese
2. Wong Kar-Wai
3. Alejandro González Iñárritu
4. Christopher Nolan
5. Peter Jackson
6. Akira Kurosawa
7. Quentin Tarantino
8. Francis Ford Coppola
9. Park Chan-Wook
10. Bong Joon-ho
Honorable mentions to: Sofia Coppola, Ang Lee, Hayao Miyazaki, Michael Mann, Brian De Palma,
Denis Villeneuve, James Cameron.
@Oliver – I love that you have Park Chan-Wook and Bong Joon-ho. South Korean cinema has become a powerhouse in the 21st century. Given that you have Park Chan-Wook, Bong Joon-ho, WKW, Tarantino, Michael Mann and a mention for De Palma I am curious as to whether or not you have seen any films from the following:
Seijun Sezucki
Jean Pierre Melville
John Woo
If you have not checked these directors out yet, I think you would love their work
Hiya James, I havn’t heard of the first two, Sezucki and Melville, will definitely check them out!
I saw Face/Off not too long ago, and besides of Cage doing his antics I actually liked it a lot, lots of cool action scenes and good pacing.
I’ve also seen his western cut of Red Cliff which was ultimately ok, a bit of a disappointment since I love that era and I regard The Three Kingdoms (2010) tv series very highly.
But I know these aren’t the works he is known for, it’s his action flicks from the early 90s and I will see them one day, they’re just a bit hard to find.
It was funny seeing John Woo mentioned as the best current film director in Olivier Assanyas Irma Vep.
@Oliver – check the link below for John Woo’s best work, particularly The Killer (1989) and A Better Tomorrow (1986). I need to see Faceoff again but I think The Killer (1989) is a masterpiece with its relentless pace, and amazingly choreographed shootouts. It’s got style in spades,and is one of the great cops vs criminal films in my opinion. Its not clear good guys and bad guys here, but shades of gray to use a cliche.
Some people think Woo goes a little overboard at times, especially the assassins using the double guns and there is undoubtedly some unintensional comedy here and there, Woo similar to De Palma and Tarantino doesn’t do subtle. I for one love over the top for certain films.
As for Melville and and Sezucki:
Criterion Channel currently has 7 Sezucki films and for the most part they are glorious. Melville is probably one of the most influential on many of the auteurs on your top 10 and the honorable mentions. John Woo loves Melville and even wrote the essay for the Criterion blu ray of Le Samouraï (1967)
#1. Stanley Kubrick
#2. Martin Scorsese
#3. Akira Kurosawa
#4. Paul Thomas Anderson
#5. Francis Ford Coppola
#6. Andrei Tarkovsky
#7. Sergio Leone
#8. Terrance Malick
#9. David Lean
#10. Werner Herzog
HM: Hitchcock, Tarantino, Bertolucci, Roeg,Lynch, Kar Wai, Kalatozov
@James – I don’t include them but they wouldn’t impact his place here at all if I didn’t count them (I’ve seen My Best Fiend (good), Grizzly Man (disliked) and Lessons of Darkness which I thought was also decent.) It’s the Kinski films and Heart of Glass that lets him slip in.
Are there any Kiyoshi Kurosawa films in the archive? I recently watched Cure (1997) and Pulse (2001) and was really impressed, particularly by the former.
He makes pretty good atmospheric, horror films.
Also what do you think of Sion Sono, I have not watched any of his films but planning to do so, any recommendations?
@Alt Mash- Thank you for the comment- There are not – on Kiyoshi Kurosawa question here – at least currently. I’ve seen both above but would love to revisit. I want to see Wife of a Spy, too.
@Theo Thank you for visiting the site and the comment. This is an impressive collection. 15 as in you’ve been a cinephile for 15 years? Or 15 as in you are 15 years old? When I was 15 I had not seen a single film by these filmmakers (and if I did, it was by accident).
Thank you so much! To answer your question I am currently 15 years of age. (10th grade) For about two years I have looked at your lists for inspiration, often watching films that you HR-MP. Really appreciate your hard work and dedication meant to this amazing page. Though just one major question… Just wondering, why are Pasolini, Malle, Rohmer, and Wazjda ranked so low on your list?
@Theo- well congratulations to you for getting into cinema seriously at such a young age! I am happy to hear you’ve enjoyed visiting these pages here. Hmmm- so for the four auteurs in question I’ll take them on a case by case basis. Before I do though, I will say that my goal is to constantly be improving the site and pages with future updates. I finished my top 250 rankings almost 3 years ago now and I can see all sorts of problems with it. My next update should remedy most of the problems I hope. Ok- so for Pasolini, I was able to do a study of his work (12 films from 2020-2022) so we should see him shoot up this list with the next update. For Malle, I guess I’d ask “ranked so low” compared to what? If you visit the They Shoot Pictures Don’t They consensus list- https://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top250directors.htm Malle is at #162 and I have him at #125. So I actually think more highly of him than the consensus. For Rohmer and Wajda, certainly the consensus has them ranked higher than I do. There is no real reason here, I have seen 3 Rohmer films in the last 6 years (not a high number) and 0 Wajda films during that stretch- so another study of both is probably overdue. I take it you think they should be closer to the top?
@Theo- well congratulations to you for getting into cinema seriously at such a young age! I am happy to hear you’ve enjoyed visiting these pages here. Hmmm- so for the four auteurs in question I’ll take them on a case by case basis. Before I do though, I will say that my goal is to constantly be improving the site and pages with future updates. I finished my top 250 rankings almost 3 years ago now and I can see all sorts of problems with it. My next update should remedy most of the problems I hope. Ok- so for Pasolini, I was able to do a study of his work (12 films from 2020-2022) so we should see him shoot up this list with the next update. For Malle, I guess I’d ask “ranked so low” compared to what? If you visit the They Shoot Pictures Don’t They consensus list- https://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top250directors.htm Malle is at #162 and I have him at #125. So I actually think more highly of him than the consensus. For Rohmer and Wajda, certainly the consensus has them ranked higher than I do. There is no real reason here, I have seen 3 Rohmer films in the last 6 years (not a high number) and 0 Wajda films during that stretch- so another study of both is probably overdue. I take it you think they should be closer to the top?
Nearing end of Coen Brothers Study and one of the things that really jumped out at me was how amazing their casts are for almost every single one of their films other than A Serious Man (2009) and I think that one was by design.
Got me curious though which auteur has the best, or your favorite, regular casts? And I’m talking about ensemble casts so someone who may have had some great pairings like Hitchcock with James Steward or Cary Grant wouldn’t qualify. For me a few come to mind In no particular order:
Coen Brothers
PT Anderson
Quentin Tarantino
Wes Anderson
Martin Scorsese
Starting Seijun Suzuki Study – I watched 7 of his films in 2019 and graded them but did not actually go through and take notes back then. Going to rewatch those 7 plus 3 additional ones
With an MS/MP in Pinocchio, a good number of HRs to back him up, and a fair few Rs, I would estimate possibly even around the #100 mark where Miyazaki is sitting. I think their resumes more or less line up in that way, though obviously its not the only criteria.
Starting Director Study for Seijun Suzuki. Will post to this page since he does not have his own page
Take Aim at the Police Van (1960)
Notes:
Starts with shot of man holding gun then switch to POV shot through sniper rifle before transitioning to opening credits
2:45 to 1 aspect ratio
4:50 repetition used as foreshadowing
5:15 sniper POV shot
6 min story moves to next day after a brilliant opening showing a coordinated taking down of a Police Van emptying out prisoners, this results in Van’s prison guard Daijirô Tamon, getting suspended for 6 months
10:20 close up on gangster then set about 20 feet back with the same gangster in background
12:12 internal dialogue from Tamon, the films protagonist
12:47 camera panning along photos of the girls at the “modeling agency” aka brothel
13:45 great overhead shot of surrounding mounts and the city which is located along the water
15:08 nice frame within frame
20:02 great framing using 2 windows
22:20 self-referential “I prefer mysteries set in Japan”
23:10 camera set near ground level at pool
26:50 sniper POV shot
27:26 great composition and use of lighting in the underpass
28:25 shaky camera from vehicle POV
29:13 narration with flashbacks of the crime
32:20 camera panning rapidly creating a disoriented sensation
38 min shot reserve shot
40 min camera goes to low angle shot
41:01 overhead shot
42:19 flashback used for explaining narrative
43:20 eerie score during driving scene
45:21 great blocking and use of framing
53:43 nice framing with 2 different depths of field
54:55 great composition with lonely Yuko on far-right side of frame and the rest of frame empty and at 55:05 when injured Tamon returns home camera moves in on relieved Yuko
56:02 back and forth close ups on faces one at time
56:16 great close up on both faces in the same frame, great blocking here
57:24 multiple depths of field
58:48 camera panning up on window showing waiting gunman
1:03:18 landscape shot with mountains in background
1:03:30 great camera movement with pan across the room
1:06:24 great low angle shot of 3 men forming triangle watching the Van with Tamon and woman inside moving toward what seems like a sure death
1:08:00 suspense mounts with the score
1:10:02 great location for climax of film, very Western vibe out near the mountains in isolated area
1:11:53great camera zoom back from gangsters playing cards inside bar
1:12:50 train takes up half the frame, as characters now at final setting
1:14:23 another close up on same dark sunglasses
1:16:14 camera pan as police sirens ring out
1:17:03 dramatic close ups on faces
1:17:45 rapid edits used to dial up the suspense
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki explores Japan’s underworlds in his films similar to Shōhei Imamura, there are some elements of Noir with the character Yoko serving as a sort of Femme Fatale and some of the visuals including shadows, dim lighting, and nighttime setting
The pacing is perfect for this type of story which is for the most part in constant motion with one man, Tamon, investigating the shooting incident as he travels through the streets dealing with various criminals. The films narrative set up works great as Tamon is suspended for 6 months for Van being hijacked so when he sets out to investigate what happened he doesn’t have anyone to report to so he has the freedom of a private investigator
There are many shots with the camera positioned low and some impressive framing with frame in frames and use of windows, doors, and even trucks
Close up shots and slow zoom outs are used to great effect as we the viewer have limited perspective as to who is present in many locations giving off vibe of danger throughout the film
There are a few scenes that foreshadow upcoming events, none better than the opening 6 minutes which is masterful in a sort of montage of people involved both inside and outside of the Police Van
The final set piece at the train is probably the best 5 min stretch of the film along with the opening 5 min
A friend of mine is a big Suzuki fan he introduced me to his films.
Unfortunately I have only seen four of his films l, which are pretty popular –
Youth of the Beast
Tokyo Drifters
Branded to Kill
Zigeunerweisen
I have not seen much of his earlier films, but they get more and more surreal. Branded to Kill is my favourite.
Anyways I love your reviews and regularly check them out, looking forward for more.
@Alt Mash – thanks again, l got 12 films planned including the one I just posted about, I have seen 8 of the 12 previously and think extremely highly of Branded to Kill and Tokyo Drifter in particular
So seven years ago (I was 14 then ) I was on a streak of watching controversial pulpy horror movies. Most of those films were either found-footage Or pure B-grade pulpy stuff. But two of the most artistically superior films I saw were The Devils by Ken Russell and Possession by Andrzej Zulawski. I liked The Devils more because it was available in a better quality but your recent thoughts on Possession made me check out if I missed something as it was anything but a masterpiece until then. I seeked some modern trailers and the quality in them is something that just wasn’t there in the version I saw 7 years ago back in 2016. It’s much better. I saw Possession again and this time I got everything. I have more knowledge of cinema now. At that time I was all about Adjani’s performance, atmosphere, the ambiguity, strangeness etc. It was all there in my recent viewing as well but the the three new MAJOR additions are here,
1. The camera movement- Zulawski’s camera floats, flies. It’s evident and certainly impacts as much as the steadicam shot of Jack Nicholson approaching Shelley Duvall (with a bat in her hand) in The Shining.
2. The color palette- the greys, dull blues, purples
3. The overall theme- it’s a movie about Zulawski’s own divorce. It’s not an outer observation of what couples go through…the crying, argument, heart break, etc etc (Marriage Story/ Scenes from a marriage) . It’s an inner exploration of what couple feel…. The craziness, the hysteria, the horror. The wife is having sex with a monster (literally). The hurt in the movie is the physical manifestation of immense heartache. How much would it hurt if you put your hand in a chopper… Well it hurts that much. That’s the image Zulawski’s trying to create. Just compare the fight scenes here with those of Marriage Story, Blue Valentine, Marriage Story etc.
It’s a sure set Masterpiece
So now let me get to the point I cought up another Zulawski film. It was recommended to me personally by George (a fellow cinephile and admirer of this side my good friend).
That Most Important Thing: Love
Well all I can say is that it’s by the same director who directed Possession… First frame to last. This was a clear revelation for me. An astounding piece of filmmaking
The same camera movements (stylistic supernova- it’s Zulawski being an auteur) as Possession but not as many open spaces and streets as Possession. Impeccable production design better than possession.
Romy Schneider is the lead here. Almodovar dedicates Women on the verge of a nervous breakdown to her performance in this movie and it shows.
It’s a “TOUR DE FORCE”. Just like Adjani’s work in Possession her performance belongs in the same universe as possession. Just like how specific WKW Or Antonioni film performances are. She’s without doubt the best 1975 has to offer as far as female acting performances go. She’s more mature than Adjani. I don’t know where you might have seen her. She’s in The Trial by Orson Welles and really great in it.
That Most Important Thing: Love is a HR/MS for me. On my first viewing.
I suggest you stop what you’re doing and seek it out. It’s a great companion piece to Possession and establishes Zulawski as master of camera movement.
@M*A*S*H – I saw it a few days ago actually. I may try to get to it again. I have it graded out lower than you. I agree with much of you have to say here about her performance and the camera movement. I’m not with the “Impeccable production design better than possession” comment. But I miss things – or have in the past for sure.
M*A*S*H
February 5, 2023 at 10:47 pm
@Drake- Okay so what did you make of it? Is it in the archives? If yes, then what grade did you assign it?
Drake
February 5, 2023 at 11:00 pm
@M*A*S*H- Oh yes, in the archives. I thought highly of it and like I said, agree with most of what you said. That production design comment compared to Possession stuck out. But I have it as a R/HR or maybe HR with a little more time to sink it. I do love the connective tissue between the two films.
Starts with war footage with boxier aspect ratio that changes to wider aspect ratio about 2 min in
2:16 changes to main story with low angle shot with teenage protagonist, Jiro, isolated in frame
3:27 camera movements and Jazz score capture vibrant youth in streets
6:29 rapid zoom from surveillance angle
8:15 camera panning along stage with band performing
13 min Jiro in foreground with mother in background during argument over mother’s new boyfriends as husband was killed during WW2
15:18 Jiro isolated in frame upon leaving house
21:28 camera panning 360 at close distance
22:18 low angle shot with great blocking as teens/young adults hanging around
25:45 Jiro standing behind fence taking up most of frame as kids walking by on right side of frame
26:08 distorted images at a sort of funhouse as Jiro goes on rides alone
30 min Coleman Hawkins poster
32:40 Jiro POV driving car
39:25 slow zoom out with camera set low
40-45 min family drama escalates with each of 4 characters isolated in frame 1 at a time throughout much of the scene, tense throughout
46:41 camera panning along shoreline
54:04 panning through street as Jiro drives off
55:28 Jiro’s mother and boyfriend in background of frame with teens in foreground leading chant
55:50 close up and camera pan inside youth club where an earlier scene was shot
57:50 series of jump cuts
1:00:20 boyfriend of mother standing in background trying to have a serious conversation with Jiro who resists all attempts at civility while kissing girlfriend
1:03:00 anger brewing throughout film turns violent
1:04:10 framing though vehicle windshield
1:04:44 slow pan across to otherwise empty house until Jiro’s mother sitting in corner
1:08:28 after accident immediate transition to bar room
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki going with Jazz score as was popular during this time period in Japan, its fitting for a story about post war youth
This is one of 8 Suzuki films on Criterion Channel right now along with the following; Take Aim at the Police Van, Youth of the Beast, Gate of Flesh, Story of a Prostitute, Fighting Elegy, Tokyo Drifter, and Branded to Kill
This film can be viewed as a sort of tragedy with Jiro’s immaturity dooming everyone in his life who is trying to help him
Some great camera work throughout film capturing the youth of this film in a post war society
First film in Color for this study, wide aspect ratio again
1:30 trucks full of gangsters get into crazy shootout in middle of a road including a Pepsi Truck (love the shameless product placement)
4:26 Joe Shishido makes first appearance playing in poker in cardroom
7:37 nice close up on faces each on opposite sides of the frame with middle of frame out of focus
10 min wide shot of the city
Shishido as Tajima, a detective investigating Yakuza criminal activity
16:58 great frame in frame in frame shot using car window and police station front door as Manabe exits building
17:39 transition to a black and white TV taking up most of frame where the same events are playing out as potential shoot out is inevitable and starts up shortly after; woman watching black and white TV like she is watching a cops and robbers TV show for entertainment
24:54 watching events play out on the black and white TV again
25:28 great use of red lighting creating highly sexualized image
26:52 Tajima captured in same red lighting
28:07 yellow lighting in the foreground with red lighting in background of shot inside apartment
29:20 gray/blue color palette
30:36 over the hip shot
31:56 frame using overhead shot from trap door located above Tajima
34:34 double close up
36:50 close ups back and forth between Tajima playing an undercover detective and the mob boss, without both in same frame
38:12 saturated green car
41 min church used as part of elaborate backstory for Tajima to convince mob boss he is not police
41:55 meeting in church confessional with Tajima in background of frame behind bars
43:43 what would be gangster film without beautiful dancers, red and blue clothing of dancers contrasts with gray and black in the rest of the frame
45:52 Tajima spontaneously gets up and starts singing along with performers in nightclub
47:15 wide shot of club during end of performance
51:13 overhead shot of club
53:24 close up on love interest of Tajima
53:53 great frame of heads in foreground
56:01 curtain blocks part of frame, wide
1:04:56 red lighting returns when Manabe returns to apartment from earlier
1:06:06 maybe best composition in film with double profile shot at different depths of field with half the frame using red lighting
1:07:04 night club shot with heavy use of silver in mise en scene and Christmas decorations
1:07:55 performer singer looking into camera
1:15:45 broken mirror creating multiple reflections as she details her despair
1:18:50 high angle shot through ceiling door
1:21:26 smoke filled frame enhances claustrophobic atmosphere as fire spreading through basement
1:23:01 free for all battle similar to opening scene only on a much larger level
1:25:30 newspaper headlines as narrative
1:28:03 ends with shot overlooking city
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki with another Yakuza classic, this was my first time watching this one; I found Blu Ray from Arrow Video with great quality, one of his films in color
88 min run time is ideal for this film with the narrative blasting along with a tone that is lighter than many other Yakuza films I have seen, this one is a lot of fun start to finish. There is a terrific scene about halfway through the film where the Joe Shishido character goes the lead performer at a night club in song and dance, he is incredibly charismatic and can pull off scenes like few others
The shootouts are ridiculously over the top, especially the ones that bookend the film, hilariously the opening scene involves a team of Yakuza opening fire from a Pepsi Truck, Suzuki must have had fun with this film and all its absurdities
Expressionistic use of color, especially red lighting used in a couple of scenes involving a sexualized environment, also during the club scene the lead singer is wearing a bright red outfit
I’ve noticed Suzuki likes to use these close ups and profile shots then quickly zoom out, in many of the action scenes the viewer has limited information about how much danger the character is in, creates tension effectively
Starts with shot of street in black and white but with green lettering for introduction credits set to a jazz score and 2.35 to 1 aspect ratio
2:33 shot of table with scattered items including a red flower in an otherwise black and white shot
3 min switch to color with Jazz score
2:52 switch to color as film maintains the jazz score
3:47 profile shot of Joe Shishido, playing Jo, smoking a cigarette and wearing fedora, actually looking quite a bit like Belmondo in Breathless (1960) in the scene outside of the movie theatre when he’s looking at the Bogart poster
6:48 low angle shot through glass floor above
7:38 topless dancer waving pink feathers moves to background of composition with Club Owner threatening Jo for not paying his tab at Nightclub moving into foreground
8:44 “however much they’re paying you I’ll double it” I love the dialogue in these kinds of films
9:02 Shishido as “Jo” and Boss isolated in the same frame for first time
10:13 higher level boss holding a cat and knife
10:48 Jo gets acquainted with a gangster named Minami who seems to admire his skillset
14:33 handheld camera in street
16 min camera positions changing rapidly as alternates on who has upper hand
17:50 great use of dissolve as addict chases the fading image out of the door
24:17 “kill the boss’s 6th mistress” hilarious
27:53 great composition of the three characters
29 min low angle shot with protagonist elevated in background
32:28 Jo in foreground and Minami in background, fitting with Minami hero worship of Jo growing
35:06 great pan across identical looking frames
39:18 beautiful painterly like shot with yellow air in background
44:04 noir-esque night shot in rain
50:35 long shot makes use of wide aspect ratio
52:28 shot of cars riding side by side using both windows as framing
54:49 creative frame using highway underpass
57:07 3 depths of field
1:07:05 mini planes used to frame Jo
1:11:45 two shot connects Jo and wife of man murdered by mob
1:14:17 another shot using window
1:16:57 camera which was POV from Jo pulls back to reveal Jo with several guns on him he didn’t see coming leading to revelation that the Boss is aware of Jo’s intentions to sabotage both gangs
1:23:17 cross cutting revealing narrative twist
1:23:53 another window shot
1:25:10 cutaway shot to hallway
1:25:58 close up on Jo’s face upon discovering betrayal
1:30:55 pan to video recording
1:31:37 color fades to black and white with exception of red flower and green lettering just like opening scene
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki with another Yakuza Film, his specialty, the plot is intentionally generic a
Suzuki’s films are often hilarious not only in absurdity but just the comical delivery of the lines like after Shishido’s character kills or severely injures several of his guys the Mob Boss with his back turned to Shishido casually says “however much they’re paying you I’ll double it”. These are movies characters with movie character dialogue and its so much fun to watch
Elements of buddy film although a little usual as its kind of one sided with Minami’s hero worship of Jo, although to be fair Shishido’s Joe is awesome
Suzuki alters perspectives in an impressive manner, the viewer rarely has all the visual information making violence and potential double crosses present throughout the film
I love the bookend use of black and white with green lettering in credits and color in flowers
Starts with beautiful but haunting montage of images with red lettering and faded colors during opening credits
2:20 tracking shot of woman moving through the streets at night during a police raid of a brothel
3:50 Joe Shishido character whistling and walking through the streets
6:12 great camera panning through daytime crowd near brothel
7 min red dress standouts with few primary colors
8:35 close up on injured Japanese woman lying in field with the cross of a priest standing over her with the cross in focus
10:52 interiors of broken-down building used as brothel
13:24 transition to bright day time street and shot of working girls lined up along the fence
16:10 quick zoom in on working girl tied to a boat for working outside her territory
17:25 camera set near waist level with unfaced John getting dressed in foreground and working girl in background in darkened room
19:45 cutaway shot to American Flag
20:34 great composition of two working girls in foreground and American soldier in between the two but in the background as they argue over “turf”
22:36 overhead shot of injured soldier carried through a crowd
24:20 internal dialogue
25:40 great blocking with woman in red dress and ghostlike image of Shishido character as drumbeat continues
27:30 slow zoom out as camera glides through house at night
33:01 Shishido’s character is shown again as ghostlike figure on far-right side of frame
34 min great montage with each of working girls shown in isolation for a few seconds with saturated color in background; red, yellow, blue/green, and purple
37:40 new working girl wearing black shows up for the first time
38:11 brief ghostlike image of Shishido character again
39:54 blocking with all 5 working girls in background and Shishido in foreground with back turned to the camera
42:20 series of dissolve edits during torture/whipping scene as working girls take out their anger and jealousy on the newest girl after Shishido’s character shows an interest in her
44:52 close up on face of girl being tortured
45:25 great 360 camera movement on working girls sitting in middle of frame
51:21 shot with girl in green standing with back to outside of the house
54:42 ghostlike image of Shishido character on right side of frame and girl and John is falling for her on left side of frame
57:34 close up on girl in green’s face displaying anger before camera transitions back with abandoned houses in background that may or may not be a dream
59:50 painterly background with girl in green standing in isolation and then transition to shot of empty village in morning with muted colors
1:07:37 Shishido places Japanese flag over his face, yet another War reference along with the frequent presence of American soldiers
1:09:32 extreme close up on girl in green
1:11:16 one of film’s rare long shots
1:13:20 close up on razor
1:13:40 overhead shot of girl in red storming out of house
1:15:06 close up on girl in green’s head with face looking up toward ceiling
1:16:24 extreme close up on girl in green’s eyes followed by the attacking Shishido’s character
1:21:24 shot with most of face covered by dark
1:24:11 green lighting fillings up entire frame other than girl hanging from rope in the middle of the frame
1:25:05 similar to prior shot with green frame only overhead shot
1:28:10 eerily quiet, profile shot of girl in green
1:29:40 underpass used as frame of tragedy followed by working girls walking streets
Like opening credits red lettering and faded colors
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki with an impressive social drama, I had seen this once before about 4 years ago but did remember it being so strong visually, I probably would have given this a R at the time but with this rewatch my opinion of it was improved dramatically (see grade below)
This is like a horror version of Italian neorealism, it’s a brilliant character study only instead of one character it is set on a group of 4 or 5 working girls but they live by a set of rules and brutally punish any dissenters and where as other films about working girls might view them strictly as victims of society but that is not the case here; some might critique that but I actually think its progressive as its allows female characters to have a full range of humanity, the good and the bad
Great use of lighting, much of film set at night and interesting use of bright colors and primary colors mainly in the clothing worn by the working girls and later in film use of green lighting almost haze like
There is great camera movements throughout the film, especially in the interiors of the torn down house they live in, some tracking shots through the town are used effectively as the films setting is one of its strengths; Suzuki creates a distinct world
Shishito appears as ghostlike image in several scenes, usually when he’s not physically present almost as if he has created a break in the girl’s routine
The score is appropriately different from other films in study so far as the Jazz score would not work here given the bleak tone and atmosphere
Starts with shots of hills followed by zoom in with narration
Film is set during The Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945)
2:50 apparition like image on right side of frame
6:12 overhead shot of dead soldier
7:55 longshot with sky taking up over half the frame in background
8:13 Tarkovsky style camera turning 90 degrees into a doorway frame
13 min brutal violence
15:05 cutaway shot to valley
18:36 sitting military man leans out of darkness
20:10 shot of female from neck up while giving internal dialogue
22:23 slow motion shot used for the 1st time
25:12 metal frame of bed shot to look like prison bars
32 min rainfall fitting with the bleak atmosphere
35 min camera positioned low with subject in background, frequent shot throughout study
38:50 dreamlike images with heavy white coloring
42:56 overhead shot of brutal images, skeletons
44:08 frame using hole in wall with enemy soldiers attacking in background near center of frame
47:07 four women captured in frame, nice use of blocking
54 min dream like images of young couple lying in field at night
58:40 village under attack with heavy gunfire and explosives
1:00:45 excellent tracking shot during heavy gunfire as young woman runs without fear to find her man
1:08:30 cave like setting with religious imagery in background
1:11:02 longshot used to convey isolation as couple left behind
1:11:42 Antonioni like use of body positions to convey loneliness even in the presence of other people
1:12:52 rare use of dissolve edit
1:15:20 cutaway shot to long shot of valley
1:19:35 profile shot from multiple angles
1:22:00 prison cell prior to planned court martial
1:27:37 camera pan prior to court martial
1:32:00 series of freeze frames of Mikami and Harumi in courtyard prior to death
1:35:10 great low angle shot of soldiers marching on elevated area
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki returns to black and white, fitting as this film is bleak and unlike previous films in study there is little in way of a score, Obvious connections with Gate of Flesh, similar subject and focus on working girls but without the humor and occasional lighter moments. The film is more realism than standard melodrama although there is one relationship in particular that becomes the films focus. Still the focus is more on this village during wartime in the Japanese post in Manchuria and relationship between soldiers and women
There are some strong compositions throughout the film, particularly during enemy attacks on the village, in particular the scene starting around the 56 min mark of the film
Starts with black and white grainy image of Tetsu walking along train track
1:28 symmetrical frame with Tetsu on left side of frame and his contact on right of train
1:56 line of five men walking with Tetsu in the middle wearing white shirt and others black
2:31 extreme close up on sunglasses then cut to color images of Tetsu shooting a gun
3:30 montage of abandoned loading docks
4:22 red in black and white image
4:32 beautiful black and white shift to color with Suzuki go to green lettering that he uses in several opening credit shots
5:52 low angle shot of Yakuza watching Kurata Building
6:32 close up on Chiharu, the beautiful young singer present throughout the film who loves Tetsu
8:44 Tetsu wearing flashy light blue suit
9:44 fence around with Tetsu in foreground trying to negotiate his way out of life of crime
10:45 close up on girl giggling
11:00 Manhole Jazz Club, purple is dominant color inside, young and vibrant atmosphere inside the club which is shot with unusual angles
13 min Tokyo Drifter song in surreal looking club room with solid yellow walls and white piano , stairs leading up to a single door
13:44 canted angle of roads
15:08 neo lights with close ups on city at night
18:13 light blue in mise en scene matching Tetsu suit
21 min cutaway shot to giggling girl
21:39 low angle close up of face on phone calls
22:03 shallow focus over the shoulder shot
23:06 trapped door underneath elevator shaft
24:23 Otsuka “Money and power rule now. Honor means nothing!” says standing above with face not in the frame followed by extreme close up on Otsuka’s mouth
27:03 Otsuka’s bright red suit in foreground, over the shoulder shot of Yoshii in background
28:48 floor as ceiling shot
30 min Tatsu the Viper
30:20 Tetsu and Chiharu sitting at bar in Yellow Room
31:57 whistling theme song during car crushing montage
33:52 room above the club’s purple da
35:07 main villain in bright red suit sitting calmly in lower right corner of the frame surrounded by green in mise en scene
37:30 body positioning in frame not on same level
40:40 Chiharu descending stairs singing in yellow room
41:19 switch from Yellow Room to dark blue color palette in long shot of training traveling along tracks in Winter
42:46 hilarious how gangsters refer to the organization they work for like they were lawyers or accountants
43:26 Tetsu shown in room surrounded by wood bars resembling prison despite the beautiful architecture
45:40 song returns with Tetsu walking through mountain terrain
46:30 zoom in on X marked window
48:33 profile shot proceeding Western style standoff with approaching train, great close up shot followed by an immediate rapid zoom in
56:54 dissolve edit from Tetsu leaving in Train during Winter to skyline shot
57:27 nighttime shot of Japan’s metropolitan area
59:47 nice use of door opening as frame and blocking
1:00:30 brawl at club breaking out with American women and soldiers present along with Japanese
1:06:06 profile shot of Tetsu with green in background
1:07:07 over the shoulder shot with Kurata in foreground with back to camera
1:07:27 beautiful composition; low angle shot in club in purple background and four men meeting with Kurata and Otsuka flanked on right and left and other 2 men’s faces not visible
1:14:14 walk through empty streets, feelings of regret
1:15:39 Kurata and Otsuka surrounded by solid black wall
1:15:45 Chiharu loyal to Tetsu and refuses 8to sing theme song after his “death”
1:17:45 Tetsu in white for the first time
1:22:00 neon lights used to perfection with closing credits
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki gives us an 83-minute expressionist Masterpiece
I actually watched this 2 nights in a row, the first one my brother watched along so I wasn’t really taking notes, so watched again tonight
There is almost no point in trying to make sense of the plot aside from the very basics, you have a young and fiercely loyal Yakuza hitman trying to give up a life of crime after his bosses criminal organization is dissolved but the powers that be won’t allow this to happen, that is all you need to know as beyond that it is absurd to the max, actually some similarities to some of Godard’s 60’s films like Pierrot le Fou (1965) and Made in USA (1966) with the playfulness and absurd storylines and with Wes Anderson’s dedication to color which alone is worthy of its own essay.
The use of color and shifting set pieces are magnificent from Night Clubs to isolated trains in Japanese Winter and a compound that reminded me of the location of the Final Battle between The Bride and O-Ren in Kill Bill Vol 1. There are also all those color-coded rooms; The Yellow Room, Purple Room, or Green Room, the White Room
The use of color is gorgeous as mentioned but the creative framing and compositions deserves recognition such as the immaculate low angle shot at 1:07:27 in the purple room with the blocking of the four gangsters meeting with only Kurata and Otsuka flanked on right and left and other 2 men’s faces not visible
The compositions in many of the cutaway shots to Chiharu singing are beautiful. There is a dreamlike nature a la David Lynch to many of these scenes, hard not to think of Blue Velvet even if the tone is quite different, I love the title song repeated throughout the film similar to what Altman would do in The Long Goodbye (1973) 7 years later
Drake,
What did you think was stronger Tokyo Drifter or Branded to Kill? I had seen both more than once prior to study but was really impressed by recent viewing of Tokyo Drifter
Set in 1935
Starts with classroom full of High School students although the actors are probably in their 30s
4:26 lead character behind wooden bars, frequent shot with Suzuki
8 min Kiroku starts training as a way to refocus energy and angst
13:30 an intense fighting session, basically a Fight Club
20:48 zoom in on Kiroku through the fence
23:30 fighting scene uses high shots per second
29:48 montage of close up shots on the various weapons the approaching combatants were holding
30 min gusts of wind present in several scenes so far with occasional sandstorm
34:30 profile shot
35:12 character behind wooden bars again
38:17 strong composition with Kiroku standing in foreground holding his rifle while facing commander with his fellow soldiers standing in unison in background of the frame; Kiroku is clearly a rebel of sorts which naturally gets him into trouble as he resists conformity
39:42 Kiroku again isolated in frame, here in the background with fellow soldiers standing unison in foreground
41:55 rapid pellet like shots fired at officers inside office using slow motion and extreme close ups
47:07 low angle shot of Kiroku sitting on rock having talk with his father
48:05 Welles style low angle shot
50:18 strange sequence with alternating aspect ratios but with each only covering about half the frame at a time, I haven’t seen this before
54 min dissolve edit used shortly after Kiroku leaves school in disgust
55:10 interesting framing using roof of building on slanted angle
1:04:50 gorgeous low angle shot as camera pans in woods with Sun poking through a la Kurosawa in Rashomon
1:06:30 tracking shot of Kiroku approaching fearlessly despite being massively outnumbered
1:11:00 after the fight in which many were hurt badly, we see a Suzuki trait of disorientation by way of close-up shots and a stretch with high number of shots per second
1:16:58 shot of soldiers hanging upside down from clothesline then camera pans to sign “Principals Office”
1:18:33 jump to Winter with snow, window as frame as camera slowly zooms out
Thoughts:
Quite hilarious intentional or otherwise with a great satire on fascism and the Japanese Imperial Army, Suzuki, himself seemed to have a rebellious streak, he was a bit of an iconoclast so not surprising that he would be drawn to this material
A bit of mediation of teenage angst (despite many of the actors probably being in their late 20s and even early 30s) and conformity
Some strong compositions showing Kiroku as a rebel with Kiroku positioned away from groups of young Japanese men positioned together whether in line of seated in classroom
Starts with leisurely piano score and theme song set to opening credits
Back to black and white
2:15 Joe Shishido as Hanada in back seat rocking sunglasses despite it being night
3 min Shishido ordering steam white rice at bar
3:32 “booze and women kill a killer”
5:20 profile shot close up with Hanada
6:50 “the glory of # 1” hilarious the way they talk about Hitman’s rankings like they were having a conversation about College Football
8:30 Jazz score kicks in
11:15 camera moves to long shot as car crosses bridge before a POV shot used from Hanada driving
14:32 slow motion
17:37 window as frame for mounted gun
20:20 profile shot of femme fatale character named Misako Nakajô played by actress Annu Mari
21:15 love triangle montage of sorts with Shishido character sniffing white rice, his girlfriend from the opening nightclub scene showering, and cutaway shots to femme fatale in the rain
30:23 Misako’s head shown in isolation in pouring rain as she speaks to Hanada about a job
31:58 butterfly interrupts the hit with sniper rifle
33:13 “you’ve lost your ranking and will be killed”
34:21 Suzuki using pans across apartment more frequently
34:55 “we’re beasts” said during sex scene with soft focus
36:32 camera tracks Hanada
36:57 zoom in on Misako through the waterfall
38:34 pan across apartment with butterflies covering wall
39:20 Misako with perfect femme fatale line telling Shishido why he won’t kill her yet “but you won’t until you’ve ravished me”
40:53 keyhole as frame with butterflies along wall and gun on the floor; amazing composition
45:16 rifle almost the length of the frame
46:08 bizarre collage of butterflies in various frames
50:10 low angle silhouette image with Shishido standing in doorway frame
55:30 Misako shown on projector being interrogated for not killing Hanada
57:03 great shot with projector image of dead Misako over Hanada’s head as if burning into his mind
1:04:44 we finally see “# 1” with appropriate low angle shot building up his reputation
1:06:53 camera pans around the entire city in a night vision as a panicked Hanada is taunted by # 1
1:13:46 Hanada meets # 1 again face to face, the classic bad guy talking and philosophizing instead of killing protagonist
1:15:20 “your training is inadequate” # 1 says to Hanada after explaining that he can literally sleep with his eyes open, hilarious
1:19:16 the two hitmen eat together at restaurant is just as comical as it sounds
1:23:04 training to battle # 1 like a boxer getting ready for fight
1:23:44 hallway long shot
1:24:30 empty boxing arena, dim lighting as tension grows
1:27:10 lights blinking as # 1 toys with Hanada along with tape recording “this is how # 1 works; he wears you down”
1:28:35 the absurdity of this situation is so funny after all the build up
1:30:30 the theme song returns shortly before final shot
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki was fired after this film by the Studio, tension had been building for a while as the Studio ordered him to make more conventional gangster movies, advice he wisely ignored even if it did get him fired. Like Tokyo Drifter this is so utterly unpredictable and near impossible to describe to someone not familiar with Suzuki
Absurd for sure but if Tokyo Drifter had elements of Godard in its playfulness, Branded to Kill has elements of Jean Pierre Melville’s meta-awareness; Melville’s characters frequently understood their place within the film whether they were a cop, thief, informer, etc. Like Melville’s characters the characters in this film understand their place with their hilarious hyper focus on their hitman ranking # “the glory of being number 1” like they were boxers talking about getting their title shot
Similar to Park Chan Wook sex scenes are graphic but not (in my opinion) exploitative which I would define as sex used for either shock value or for cheap thrills but here sex is intrinsically linked to violence, I love the “we’re beasts” line as sex is undeniably one of the most animalistic things people do
There is a fever dream vibe throughout the film, I particularly love how the film transforms into a psychological thriller of sorts in the last 20-25 min with # 1 toying with Hanada leading to the inevitable showdown
Around the 21:15 mark of the film there is a series of images, a sort of love triangle montage sequence of 3 shots; Shishido character sniffing white rice, his girlfriend from the opening nightclub scene showering, and cutaway shots to femme fatale in the rain who he is clearly attracted too more than his girlfriend. This is just one example, but you have these rapid sequences in the film
There are creative framing and angles throughout; one of my favorites is a keyhole shot with the keyhole as frame with butterflies along wall and Misako standing in the room with a gun on the ground
Starts with classic music and close up of record playing during opening credits, already seems like something different from everything in this study prior to this one
5:20 exterior shot of train moving with mountains in the background
6:40 slow motion shot of group of about 15 people moving in unison on a beach
This film focuses on 2 friends; a professor named Aochi and his former colleague, Nakasago, who is now living as a nomad
7:20 bizarre, animated image of cartoon looking red crab moving out of woman’s pants and onto the beach
12:50 strange quartet of musicians play along the beach
20:32 trio of musicians with middle playing a banjo like instrument
24:44 camera drops back to a long shot of the pier
27:07 cutaway to waves crashing upon rocks
34:38 all dishes are a saturated red
36:08 slow zoom from record player from opening credits
38:08 open door as frame
38:23 thumping score with slow zoom
40:20 beautiful geological structure makes humans tiny by comparison
44:38 gorgeous shot of window frame with solid orange in the background
44:44 great shot using blocking
45:46 stunning shot with hallway field of depth
48:08 long shot with camera held in place
54:10 great using of multiple frames using doors
1:00:55 a bizarre chase seen through a house with narrow hallways
1:11:25 haunting image with 3 dead bodies below Nakasago, all captured in low angle shot in underground tunnel
1:18:59 clever mirror shot places Aochi on opposite side of frame
1:20:05 Antonioni style shot with physical barrier between 2 characters on opposite sides of frame, shortly after this is juxtaposed by close up shot on both faces next to each other
1:22:22 3 characters form triangle with female Geisha in the middle of two men although in foreground
1:30:55 beautiful low angle shot with use of color, purple, in mise en scene
1:32:02 colorful frame with primary colors
1:33:52 shot of Nakasago on top of hill near top of frame looking down on children singing has a fairy tale
image
1:36:28 cutaway to shot of Sun taking up entire frame
1:37:37 thumping noise returns with gliding camera through a number of beautiful images of nature
1:46:50 camera moves back with shot through a white sheet around the bed which turns green and other colors over the next couple of minutes
1:59:24 shot of 3 characters in hallway, triangle
2:01:21 painterly image with trees in foreground and water in background
2:08:42 title reference, which refers to classical music
2:11:24 beautiful shot with subject in middle of frame and water in background, shot from inside residence and through the glass door
2:12:35 repeated shot through film
2:16:18 great mirror shot
2:16:44 close up on 2 beers while music from opening scene plays
Thoughts:
This is the 1st of films known as The Taisho Trilogy named after a Japan Era that last from 1912 to 1926 and gets its name from the ruling Emperor Taishō although this period is known for its liberalism. After being fired by Nikkatsu Studios following Branded to Kill in 1967 Suzuki didn’t get a chance for another feature film for 13 years with this trilogy and here Seijun Suzuki goes with something entirely different here in terms of content, style, and the fact that all the other films so far in the Study were approximately 90 min or less while this one is 144 min
Perhaps the editing is the most interesting aspect of this film as Suzuki defies the rules of continuity with abrupt transitions of characters and objects into and out of the frame, there is a surreal aspect to it, resembling to a certain degree David Lynch films as the story feels like its drifting in and out of consciousness,
Jump cuts and unusual editing throughout the film, the characters here are often positioned looking in different directions or having physical barriers like walls in between them
Making sense of this is near impossible, like some of Godard’s work in the 60s there is little to no concrete plot and even attempting to make sense of it all is basically a waste of time, instead best to just try to experience it like watching something like Stalker
Starts with serene image of water and montage of shots of water during opening credits
Set in Tokyo in 1926
3:10 woman standing on stairs near middle of frame wearing purple robe and holding flowers
5:50 characters in different planes of the frame
6:20 slow motion set to image of woman walking down stairs with flowers flying off
8:50 spinning heads in and out of shot
14:24 slow zoom out beautiful shot along water
19:50 series of shots with woman in seductive positions lying on red match leading to fragmented sex scene
26:48 shot of beautiful woman on stairs similar to shot near opening of the film
28 min haunting music
29:55 composition with person standing quietly in background, common trait in these films I’ve noticed
31 min frequent green in mise en scene
32:40 brief cutaway shot to stairs with flash of a purple umbrella
34:02 two subjects talking in foreground with dancers in background with Jazz music playing
37 min red and green in mise en scene during slow dance scene
51 min private section of train transitions to inside of Japanese house
54 repeated shots of same women in a boat moving along water
55:18 close up shows doll like figure
55:45 green again in mise en scene along with multiple frames
57:27 well-choreographed shots of Geisha dancers, symmetrical frame
1:04:15 beautiful shot of Geisha surrounded by white flowers and quick zoom out
1:05:10 low angle shot of woman in pink robe
1:08:08 several beautiful shots using reflections in pond as images are distorted
1:15:20 “a mysterious woman? Then die with her”
1:15:30 painterly shot of lake with bright green grass in foreground
1:22:48 overhead shot indoor ceremony
1:26:10 Montage of sexual images on stage
1:32:34 color palette change to purple and light blue
1:38:00 magnetic repelling
1:39:30 bright blue eyes
1:40:27 beautiful colored silhouette image
1:42:24 great montage of architecture in houses throughout this town
1:43:47 bright colors and primary colors in mise en scene
1:44:33 frame using stage and floor of theatre, primary colors in background
1:50:55 slow zoom out followed by beginning of children’s play on same stage
1:56:12 play just as strange as everything before it in this film
1:56:58 one of best shots of film with multiple layers of depth and frame within frames, really just a great composition
2:00:15 single actress on stage, bright colors in background
2:04:42 stunning use of color in frame
Thoughts:
2nd installment of Taisho Trilogy
Similar to the 1st film the editing and lack of continuity immediately stands out
There are beautiful images throughout the film which admittingly is quite challenging, again to some degree you have to except that much of the film can’t be understood in any conventional way and this can be difficult to get through at times so I mainly tried to just enjoy the imagery and experience the film rather than trying to make sense of it all
Seijun Suzuki 3rd and final installment in the Taisho Trilogy
More of the same with beautiful images in particular great use of frames and colors
Like the 2 previous installments the narrative is thin, here even thinner than the first 2 which is why I did not take notes it was very experimental and difficult to watch and take conventional notes
Impressive use of collage and color
Seijun Suzuki was one of the first directors I watched when I ordered the Criterion Channel in 2019, I went through all 7 of his available films and was mesmerized by his bombastic style and ability to capture youthful energy. Like Hitchcock’s MacGuffin the plots of Suzuki’s films are often beside the point, the real value is setting up all the great action, hilarious dialogue, shifting narrative, etc.
Suzuki has a legitimate claim as best director of Yakuza films, which are basically Japanese version of gangster movies. Suzuki is to Yakuza as Jean Pierre Melville was to French Gangster Films, although there are also some considerable different; Melville’s films have a cool detachment to them, his go to guy Alain Delon his words carefully while Suzuki’s films tended to be more playful and his go to guy Joe Shishido was more verbal and unpredictable. I would argue he has some common traits with another legendary French auteur, Jean Luc Godard. Like Godard Suzuki’s films often are absurd with plots that are not describable by any conventional standards
Ironically Suzuki was fired from his Nikkatsu studio after making Branded to Kill which is now considered by many (including myself) to be his magnum opus. Speaking of which pre-study I had Branded to Kill as easily his best film, but Tokyo Drifter blew me away so much to the point where I really had to think it over when making the final rankings. None the less I still have Branded to Kill at the number 1 spot with both as MPs. Tokyo Drifter might have minute for minute more standout images but is less cohesive. While both are Yakuza films, they at the same time transcend genre a la Godard’s work in the 60s.
While his Nikkatsu films are his best known and most popular outside of Japan it is The Taisho Trilogy that is considered to be his great films in Japan. His Yakuza films are my personal favorite and I think his 2 best films hands down are Branded to Kill and Tokyo Drifter which are his 2 MPs. I loved seeing this beautiful trilogy, really shows off Suzuki full talent as he can do more than just genre films. Of course to some degree these are just as bizarre as something like Tokyo Drifter. The Taisho Trilogy is dense and quite challenging but even if it does not work at all times one thing you can never accuse Suzuki of is being conventional or predictable and certainly not uninteresting. All 3 films which total nearly 7 hours are not an easy watch and I would not recommend to anyone who is not a cinephile. I am glad that I watched them but if I am being honest, I am not sure I will be returning to them for a long time. I will absolutely return to the Nikkatsu films as they are incredibly rewatchable
# 1 Branded to Kill (1967), MP
# 2 Tokyo Drifter (1966), MP
# 3 Gate of Flesh (1964), MS
# 4 Detective Bureau 2-3: Go to Hell Bastards! (1963), MS/HR
# 5 Zigeunerweisen (1980), HR
# 6 Youth of the Beast (1963), HR
# 7 Take Aim at the Police Van (1960), HR
# 8 Everything Goes Wrong (1960), HR/R
# 9 Kagero-za (1981), R/HR
# 10 Fighting Elegy (1966), R
# 11 Story of a Prostitute (1965), R
# 12 Yumeji (1991), R
I hope that before updating the directors list, you will have time to check out some films by Wojciech Has. I think that just with The Saragossa Manuscript and The Hourglass Sanatorium (both fringe MP) he could make the list.
There are always gonna be disagreements with a list of this sort, but overall I really like this list quite a bit. It’s obvious that you did a deep and thorough research and most names are pretty hard to argue against. I appreciate the fact that you ranked Spielberg and Nolan quite high (even though I’m far from being the biggest fan of the latter, there seems to be this contrarian trend trying to discredit their work just because they enjoy mainstream success).
My only quibble (if I may) is the shortage of Japanese directors. I counted only seven, which seems like an extremely low number to me given how much incredible talent has come out of that country. Maybe I’m just too much of a fan of Asian cinema in general (I would rank pretty much every Asian director (except for Ozu) higher than you have). Other than that, I think it’s a really, really solid list. Keep up the good work, Drake.
Well, there are quite a few. Japan’s cinema has incredible depth. I’ll try to restrain myself and mention only five, otherwise I’m gonna keep writing until next week hahaha:
1. Seijun Suzuki. I’m sure you’ve heard about him, but I don’t know if you’ve seen any of his films. I bring him up because I think you would enjoy him a lot. His movies don’t usually have the best scripts, but they ooze swagger and style. He was influential and extremely prolific, but his 60s stretch is definitely his peak. My favourite film from him is probably Tokyo drifter, but Branded to kill is usually regarded as his magnum opus.
2. Kinuyo Tanaka. She was an extraordinary actress and also a remarkable, deeply sensitive filmmaker with a very keen eye for visual composition. Out of the six films she directed, I’ve seen five, and all of them are worth watching. The eternal breasts is perhaps her best work, but The moon has risen and Love under the crucifix are also magnificent.
3. Hiroshi Teshigahara. The two-punch of Woman in the dunes (a clear MP) and The face of another (a solid MS) is enough for me to put him on the list, but there’s more to his filmography than those two masterworks. Pitfall and Rikyu are also quite good. I haven’t had the chance to see more from him, but I intend to do so if I can, but unfortunately they’re not easy to find.
4. Yoshishige Yoshida. Not my favourite, but probably the most avant-garde of all the directors who came from the Japanese New Wave (which is saying a lot giving how batsh*it insane some of the films from this period are). His films are quite challenging and extreme, but he was a visual trailblazer of undeniable talent. Woman of the lake is a good place to start with him because, even though it’s cutting-edge, it’s still one of his most tempered films. Eros + Massacre is his most revered work. And then you have something like Heroic purgatory, which is almost impenetrable, but the things he does in that film in terms of editing and cinematography are something to behold.
5. Mikio Naruse. The best realist in classic Japanese cinema, Naruse was all about subtlety and thematic depth. He lacked the visual flair of his best-known contemporaries, which may work against him based on your criteria, but he was a superb director of actors, maybe the best one of his time. He made me fall completely in love with Hideko Takamine (who is, to this day, my favourite Japanese actress of all time). I love almost every film I’ve watched from him, but if forced to choose, I’d probably stick with Yearning and When a woman ascends the stairs. I would recommend giving those two a chance, and, if you like them, then you can dive deeper into his filmography.
I could name at least five or six more who I think deserve to be in a top 250, but I don’t wanna bore you more than necessary haha.
I gotta ask you though: did you get the chance to take a closer look at Kobayashi’s filmography? I know this may sound hyperbolic, but he’s a top 50 director in my eyes. His 1957-1967 stretch (from Black river to Samurai rebellion) is one that most filmmakers would kill to have under their belts. Even The inheritance, which is supposed to be a minor work, is fantastic.
@David O.- Thanks for the share – really solid work – appreciate it and agree with much of this (literally saw The Inheritance five days ago – and yes – it is superb). I am wrapping up a Kobayashi study tonight actually, have completed a Naruse study in the last 3 months, and a Suzuki study in the last 12 months. I am not saying the TSPDT list is gospel – but only 1 of the 6 directors you mention here is on the TSPDT top 250 director’s list and that is Naruse – and who I am fairly confident does not warrant a spot on the top 250 actually.
Harry
June 25, 2023 at 11:53 pm
@Drake – Has Kobayashi greatly gone up in your estimation?
Drake
June 26, 2023 at 3:42 am
@Harry- Yes, indeed. Kobayashi will soar up the list.
Harry
June 25, 2023 at 11:58 pm
@Drake – I’m nowhere near as knowledgeable as you but I think the best directors NOT on your list currently are Raul Ruiz, Kim Ki Duk and Joseph Losey.
Drake
June 26, 2023 at 3:43 am
@Harry- Don’t sell yourself short – your comments always indicate you know a great deal. Ruiz and Losey will be remedied upon the next update. I’ll add Kim Ki Duk to my study list again.
Harry
June 26, 2023 at 4:19 am
@Drake – Kim Ki Duk is just really impressive, I apply some of your praise to Rashomon to Spring, Summer Winter, Fall… the beauty of the film alone would warrant it high praise, and so would the structure, yet you have both there to be awed by.
He also feels like his own brand/author when so many of his films are also silent, maybe less dialogue than Valhalla Rising in some that I’ve caught.
Harry
June 26, 2023 at 4:29 am
@Drake – really happy to hear that about Kobayashi… maybe we will get to catch Tatsuya Nakadai on the best actors list now if he wasn’t already on his way.
David O.
June 26, 2023 at 4:37 pm
@Drake Well, to be honest with you, I don’t pay too much attention to TSPDT when it comes to Japanese directors. Don’t give me wrong, I love their website and it’s helped me discover a lot of films over the years, but if I had to name one blind spot, it would be that one. I mean, just the fact that Imamura sits at #180 and Kobayashi doesn’t even make the cut is incomprehensible to me and tells you everything you need to know about how overlooked the Japanese New Wave has been in Western studies (Kobayashi is not exactly New Wave, but he’s definitely not a classicist either). But hey, at least they included Oshima, which is a nice touch and one I wouldn’t disagree with at all (I actually prefer him to Yoshida, I just recommended the latter because he’s stylistically bolder and I thought you might connect with him more due to that).
As for Naruse, I’m not even gonna fight you on that because I understand where you’re coming from and, like I said, I knew he probably wasn’t gonna be your cup of tea. I include him in my top 250 because I love his films, even though the reasons why I love them are the writing and the acting, not necessarily the visual prowess. Same thing happens with Koreeda (who, interestingly enough, did manage to squeak in TSPDT’s top 250), they both are directors who get in based on the strength of their filmographies, even if they’re not visual masters.
I’m glad to hear you’ve done a Suzuki study. Will he make the cut once you update the list? Which one would you say is your favourite film from him?
Drake
June 26, 2023 at 5:01 pm
@David O.- Fair, and like I said – TSPDT is not gospel truth and this was an excellent share from you- thank you – just a chance it may be more about your preferences and tastes (the Naruse one makes me a little suspect but whatever) – which is fine. As for Naruse – if we start including the sort of “writing and acting” directors on the list of 250 … that list will have 1000+ names on it. Hard to say on where Suzuki will land until I get a chance to look at it with the updates and changes. Hopefully start putting that together later this fall.
David O.
June 26, 2023 at 9:41 pm
@Drake Well, yeah, every time I talk about film I am sharing my preferences and tastes haha, but don’t worry because out of all the directors I mentioned, Naruse is the only one who’s mostly about substance. The other four are all pretty stylish in their own right because I know that’s what you value the most (otherwise I wouldn’t have recommended Suzuki). I talked about Naruse having a stronger filmography than his style might suggest because that’s what you said about Chaplin, which I think is a very valid argument, by the way (I would say that others like Allen, Wilder and Farhadi also fit this description). I’m not saying Naruse would be in my top 50. I mean, for me he’s a good director and he has clear and identifiable traits. I watch a Naruse film and I know it’s a Naruse film. Still, his visual presentation is not particularly noteworthy and I will be the first person to admit that. That being said, based on his filmography, I think I could find some room for him in a top 250 because even though he didn’t make any films in the MS-MP range, he did produce several works that at least I would consider to be HRs. Anyway, I said I wasn’t gonna argue with you about Naruse and that’s precisely what I’m doing right now. My apologies hahaha.
I’m glad to know that you will update the list this year, which I’m sure won’t be easy work. I’ll be looking forward to it.
@Stendhal – I can’t speak on the other 2 you reference as I have not seen yet but I am with you on Le Trou (1960) which is yet another MP level film for 1960, already the single best year in Cinema History
Very good list. Agreed on Jacques Becker missing. Also Koreeda, Chabrol, Audiard and Vinterberg who surely deserve a place ahead of Wachowskis, Ari Aster, Hogg and Tom Hooper. Would have Bresson, Malle and Rohmer all higher, but there is of course always subjectivity in any list of this nature.
They have deep filmographies. I believe Howard now has 10 archivable films, Frears 8 and Branagh 7. All three are two-time Oscar nominees for best Director.
Norman Jewison is another one who has a very deep filmography. 3-time Oscar nominee for best Director. With 8 archivable films I think.
1965-Cincinnati Kid
1967-In the Heat of the Night
1968-The Thomas Crown Affair
1975-Rollerball
1979-And Justice for All
1984-A Soldiers Story
1987-Moonstruck
1999-The Hurricane
@Lebron Smith – I usually avoid these things and try to focus on what happened. But, for the sake of your question, here goes.
Orson Welles – Welles is probably the most popular what if. Drake’s Welles page covers most of what I want to say, so I’ll be brief with this one. As big of a masterpiece as The Magnificent Ambersons is, by all accounts, Welles intended version would have rivaled Citizen Kane.
Andrei Tarkovsky – Died at 54. I think it’s safe to assume he had another 3 or 4 films left. Given his track record, they would have been MS, MS/MP, or MP level. If this happens, he may be my #1 director, especially if I ever come around on Mirror and have it where the consensus does.
Yasujirō Ozu – Died at 60. Given the rate at which he was putting out films and their quality, I will assume he would have released another 5-10, and they would have been HR, HR/MS, MS, MS/MP, and MP level.
Jean-Luc Godard – If someone wants to argue 1960-1967 Godard is the most dominant stretch by a director in history, they’ll get no disagreement from me. Unfortunately, he became interested in other things for a 13-years, and Tout Va Bien is the only notable film he made between 1968-1980. When he finally got back to making narrative features, he lost the magic he had from 1960-1967.
Max Ophüls – Died at 54. He was getting stronger before his death, with 6 of 7 films at an MS or MP level.
F. W. Murnau – Died at 42. There’s no telling how much more he could have accomplished.
Carl Theodor Dreyer – Starting with The Passion of Joan of Arc, Dreyer never looked back. The issue is the time between his films. 1928, 1932, 1943, 1955, 1964. One wonders what could have been if he had released something every five years.
Of the above, I think Tarkovsky, Ozu, and Godard all had #1 potential. Using a sports comparison, Godard feels similar to Sandy Koufax and Pedro Martinez.
Wouldn’t include Godard here. He fizzled out. His output after Weekend(1967) or Tout va Bien(1972) is incredibly overrated among critics circles. I wish Antonioni made more films after Blow-Up(1966).
@Drake – I knew I was forgetting someone! Nice mention on Fassbinder. It’s incredible how many films he was putting out.
Drake
August 22, 2023 at 8:18 pm
@Ian- right, easy to forget about him (I’ve done it myself before) with this list because he was so prolific (12 archiveable films, and I’m sure I’m missing a few)- but still- yeah, dead at 37
Nuri Bilge Ceylan should be in a conversation for the best director of the 21st century imo, if not the best. His films are not only some of the most beautiful but they are full of depth and layers and they are masterfully constructed with clear overall vision and structuring and development that supports it. Every detail is always meaningful and plays a part and is in function of the bigger picture. He is a master of pacing, his cinematography is beautiful, his style is pretty static but always great framing, great shots, always masterful lighting, colors… His resume is not the most rich in terms of quantity so I don’t know how that limits his positioning on these types of lists but when it comes to the craft of filmmaking he is one of the best modern directors.
Very surprised by the lack of Tsai Ming-liang. Goodbye, Dragon Inn is possibly the best film of the 21st Century and he rivals PTA as the best filmmaker alive for my money. Getting into him helped me understand the merits of slow cinema. Would definitely be a top 100 filmmaker for me
@Andrew Eaton- Thank you for the comment. So this page is just over 2 years old (update coming as the next big project). Since sort of publishing – I did a Tsai Ming-liang study catching 9 of his films- many of them have pages on the website here and 3 of the made the recently finished top 1000 films of all-time.
@MovierJoker- Certainly the earlier directors are more likely to be influential – but it is fun to see the crew that came up in the 1990s (like Tarantino, Wes Anderson, and Fincher- feel like everything is Fincher lately) influence so many new films.
I think this list in itself is a pretty good starting point. Hitchcock’s manipulation of camera movement and editing to create suspense is everywhere. Ozu’s approach to framing almost seems to be the default comparison now whenever a director uses a window or doorway to create a particularly excellent composition. Then there’s Scorsese and Coppola’s influence on crime films, Godard and Truffaut when we look at subverting continuity in narrative and editing, de Sica and Rossellini innovating realism, and Kurosawa when it comes to blocking and editing action. It’s natural that the most accomplished artists in their field will also be the most influential, even if it’s not a hard and fast rule.
But like you said, it’s difficult to look past the silent film directors who invented the cinematic language everyone uses today, and which has become pretty universal. We don’t have noir or horror as we know it without Murnau or Lang, we don’t have montages without Eisenstein, and don’t have much of anything without D.W. Griffith. Creating some sort of visual representation of that lineage would be an ambitious project, but fascinating to see.
Now you have me wondering what director is the most accomplished, while also influencing the least amount of films/film makers.
Robert Bresson’s approach to acting comes to mind for me-while loads of directors admire bresson, I can’t really name any directors who have copied the way he drained his actors of all emotion/energy
@MovieJoker- thanks for sharing. I’ve read this Bordwell article. I was able to meet him decades ago- I love Bordwell. The page mostly makes me want to catch Angelopoulos’ work. I don’t think there are any Michael Bay films in the archives ( I could be wrong) but Tony Scott has a 5 or 6.
Just curious: what is the rational for George A. Romero being relatively high compared to other filmmakers much more represented/likely to appear on a Sight and Sound list (IE Abbas Kiarostami, Terence Davies, Mike Leigh, Peter Weir, Edward Yang)?
Is it because of Romero’s deep influence on cinematic horror (and on zombie media in general)?
I see.
Any thoughts on the comparison between this list and another similar list I posted below?
Malith
December 6, 2023 at 9:10 pm
@RW-Interesting question. I’m not sure. There are a lot of big changes since this list was published. I’d say Herzog-overrated, Fassbinder-underrated. Fassbinder is clearly superior. For example in the top 1000 films list here Fassbinder had 8 films while Herzog only had 3.
I think most people have not seen these films from foreign auteurs. And von Sternberg existed ages ago. While directors like Huston, Boyle and Jackson are household names who worked in Hollywood pictures. On a lower scale, this applies to Frears, Crowe and Jordan as well.
And directors like Chantel Akerman, Lucrecia Martel, Clair Denis have extraordinarily high ratings because of feminist themes. And this applies to a lot of ordinary films by black filmmakers which are praised enormously because of diversity themes. Although I can’t really pinpoint any suitable director here
Is there anyone you find particularly overrated or underrated on the Cinema Archives list?
James Trapp
December 7, 2023 at 1:38 am
@RW – Given the updated top 1000 list I think its fair to say there will be some major changes making this question tricky. Chan-wook Park would have been my biggest discrepancy at # 220 but he is going to skyrocket with the next list given huge upgrades to several of his films (upgrades I strongly agree with) I also thought Polanski at #38 should be higher but again given upgrades to several of is key films I think he will rise quite a bit. Another complicating factor is that there is a 10 year moratorium meaning films made within the last 10 years are not eligible.
James Trapp
December 7, 2023 at 2:09 am
@RW – It kills me to say it given how much I love The Wild Bunch (1969) but Sam Peckinpah at #58 is overrated. The Wild Bunch is ranked at #83 which I am on board with, I might even go higher but at Garrett & Billy the Kid at # 202 I disagree with, its a solid film but after a recent rewatch I don’t think its really all that close to The Wild Bunch
De Palma is ranked at # 64 which is actually higher than the concensus and I know Drake is a big admirer of his work but I actually think he should be higher than that. His filmography is more extensive than I initally believed. Blow Out is a straight MP but he Carrie, Scarface, Dressed to Kill are all near MS or MP level. He is a Virtuoso behind the camera and even his weaker films still have several moments worthy of high praise
Malith
December 7, 2023 at 4:59 am
I think Carlito’s Way is near masterpiece level. There is one out of place scene. But it’s a wild ride and fantastic film. It’s Pacino best performance outside the big 3 imo. Every time he screams/shouts there is a tinge of sadness associated with it.
James Trapp
December 7, 2023 at 5:46 am
@Malith – good call on Carlito’s Way, I might put it just below but its close. I think Pacino’s performance is more impressive in Carlito’s Way (or at the very least its the more complex role) although I think Scarface is overall more impressive but they are a great pairing
1. Blow Out – MP
2. Scarface – MP
3. Dressed to Kill – MP/MS
4. Carrie – MS/MP
5. Carlito’s Way – MS
Then you have another 4 films that are at least HR in no particular order:
Sisters – overlooked gem in my opinion
Obsession
Untouchables
Body Double
Malith
December 7, 2023 at 5:54 am
I think Obsession is more overlooked than Sisters tbh.
When I first stumbled upon Cinema Archives, my mind immediately went to a similar project, Erik Beck/Nighthawk News’ all-time rankings of films and directors.
Four directors appear in both lists’ top ten: Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Ingmar Bergman, Martin Scorsese.
Five directors on Cinema Archive’s top thirty do not appear in Beck’s top 100: Ozu (4th), Godard (16th), Max Ophüls (17th), Wong Kar-Wai (22nd) and Joseph von Sternberg (26th). I have to say that I completely agree with Cinema Archives here — in my opinion, Ozu directed some of the all-time greatest films.
On the other hand, three directors on Beck’s top 100 do not appear on this page’s top 250: Stephen Frears, Neil Jordan and Cameron Crowe.
The biggest discrepancies in rankings are for Peter Weir (34th on Beck’s list, 177th on Cinema Archives, -143), Danny Boyle (50th and 190th), Peter Jackson (15th and 115th) and John Huston (19th and 102nd).
That’s good.
I think Samurai Rebellion and Harakiri are as good as any Kurosawa samurai movies, and that Kwaidan is an unforgettable visual experience.
Samurai Rebellion stayed at the same level. Roughly around the same level as Kurosawa’s Sanjuro. But others like Kwaidan, Harakiri and The Human Condition(which was not even included when this page was written) got big upgrades but still below I think 5 Kurosawa films(Seven Samurai, Rashomon, High and Low, Ikiru and Bad Sleep Well) roughly around the same level as Ran and Yojimbo. And 3 other Kobayashi films got added as well apart from The Human Condition.(The Thick-Walled Room, Black River, The Inheritance). These upgrades are shown in the Tatsuya Nakadai(Kobayashi’s muse) actor page
@ James Trapp
I like quite a few Peckinpah films but I have to agree with you. I think one would have a very hard time arguing that he has either a stronger filmography or a more important role in film history than quite a few names below him on the list.
I also think that John Huston is underrated at #102.
Really? I think he’s seriously underrated here, then. I see that The Dead and The African Queen and Under the Volcano don’t even make the top 1,000.
Yes, there are quite a few mediocre films in his catalogue, but I think there’s absolutely greatness there (and that he deserves respective as a pioneering film auteur, a screenwriter-turned director at the same time as Preston Sturges made the same move and Orson Welles made Citizen Kane.)
@RW – Huston has a strong filmography no doubt, the argument against him would be his lack of incredible visuals. This site puts a lot of weight on mise en scene, visual beauty, and film form. It puts less weight in writings and acting. I am not saying this is wrong or that I disagree with it just pointing out that this tends to be the priority. Obviously this is not my site, so I am not speaking officially but I have following/posting for couple years so these are my observations. I like Huston too, in particular The Treasure of Sierra Madre is a favorite of mine and features one of my all time favorite performances with Bogart’s iconic Fred C Dobbs. Howard Hawks was once ranked # 14 and is now # 29. By the next ranking I would be suprised if he cracks the top 40.
I feel like there are some absolutely stunning visuals in the John Huston catalogue: the use of filters to make the entirety of Moulin Rouge feel like a Toulouse-Lautrec come to life, the skeleton puppets that open Under the Volcano, the ancient statues shrouded in mist and avalanche in The Man Who Would Be King, the snow-shrouded cemetery at the end of The Dead.
I think Ken Loach is overrated here. I mean Kes is great. But there is nothing really substantial after that. And he is not a style-plus director. Even though his films follow similar themes.
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
Where is Theodoros Angelopoulos?.
Béla Tarr, Andrei Tarkovsky, Ingmar Bergman, Theodoros Angelopoulos should be higher.
@R- Thank you for visiting the site and the comment here. So unfortunately the works of Angelopoulos have been very hard for me to find over the years. So I wouldn’t think too much of my omission of him here. As for Bela Tarr— I largely used my top 500 list of films as the backbone of my top 250 directors list and I have a 10 year moratorium on all films for that list. So this spot for Tarr really doesn’t include The Turin Horse. So he should climb this list. As far Bergman and Tarkovsky– I mean I have them #3 and #8- that is really the very top tier
@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.
what’s your thoughts about Nuri Bilge Ceylan? he has to be on that list.
also thank you for your immense work. it helped me a lot.
@mehmet- if you’re asking me — I still have work to do on Ceylan. I’ll admit that I’ve seen four of his films to date below- once a piece, and I didn’t find any to be worthy of a spot on the top 10 of their respective year. But I’d like to do a more exhaustive study- maybe I’ll have time for it in 2021.
2002- Distant
2006- Climates
2011- Once Upon a Time in Anatolia
2014- Winter Sleep
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.
All Time Great lists are a herculean task. And the placement perhaps even more so.
As a collective, we lovers of film often feel a personal favorite didn’t make the cut.
This is certainly a superb, undeniably deserving group of artists!
You know who I missed?
Lina Wertmueller…
Swept Away and Seven Beauties blew my mind despite being quite young upon 1st viewing. Revisiting her work years later the thrill was still there ♡
@Lisa- Thank you for visiting the site and the comment. Hopefully the list and site gets better over time as I correct some things and fix blind spots. I must admit I have not had a chance to catch Swept Away yet.
Hi Drake, I’m a dear fan of your lists. The Lists are very informative & enjoyable. I know no one outside of India heard his name. But, Kasinadhuni Viswanath is a God of South Indian Cinema. His films are aesthetically brilliant & he is one of the few greatest filmmakers who manages style with substance and has very high respect for Arts like Classical Indian Music, Dance & Literature in Telugu Cinema (Not Bollywood). His Greatest Films are (we consider here):
1. Shankarabharanam (1980)
2. Sagara Sangamam (1983)
3. Swathi Muthyam (1986)
4. Swarna Kamalam (1988)
5. Swayam Krushi (1987)
Besides Satyajit Ray, there are many Great Filmmakers in India only if you want know more Indian Culture & Art:
1. K. Balachander (Apoorva Ragangal, Avargal, Maro Charitra & Rudraveena)
2. Guru Dutt (Pyaasa & Kaagaz Ke Phool)
3. Ritwik Ghatak (Meghe Dhaka Tara, )
4. Singeetam Srinivasa Rao (Pushpaka Vimanam, Aditya 369 & Michael Madana Kama Rajan)
5. K. Raghavendra Rao (Jagadeka Veerudu Athiloka Sundari, Annamayya & Pelli Sandhadi)
6. Shekhar Kapoor (Masoom, Mr. India & Bandit Queen)
7. Maniratnam (Nayakan, Iruvar, Dil Se… & Kannathil Muthamittal)
8. Ram Gopal Varma (Shiva, Kshana Kshanam, Rangeela & Satya)
9. S. S. Rajamouli (Magadheera, Eega & Baahubali 2: The Conclusion)
10. Lijo Jose Pellisery (Angamaly Dairies, Ee Ma Yau & Jallikattu)
{ Majority of our Indian Films are combined with songs, melodrama & comedy. So, if someone gets used to it then, These Great Films are the right place to start in the Whole Wide World }.
@RAVI KIRAN- thank you for the kind works and for sharing this. I’ll keep this here and come back to it– I want to try to catch some of these films and filmmakers. I am actually planning to do a Guru Dutt study in 2021–I’ll be watching as many Guru Dutt films as I can find.
Thanks again for putting this together.
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 more on the production 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.
Just a minor correction — Emeric Pressburger was not the financial side of Powell & Pressburger. He was for all intents and purposes their films’ main screenwriter; I Know Where I’m Going!, for one originated in an idea of his that he decided to turn into a screen story. He was just as involved in the pre-production and editing stages as Powell and is credited as cowriter, codirector and coproducer for a very good reason. He was an absolutely integral part of all of the films.
@RW- fair- changed the financial side comment- thank you
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.
The Top 250 directors is now a quiz on JetPunk! This time, you have the countries from which the directors came as clues.
https://www.jetpunk.com/user-quizzes/259519/the-cinema-archives-top-250-directors
@Graham– this is so cool. Thank you
A really wonderful list you have put together here, only outdone by the depth of study and focus you have done for each director on it. Any plans for what your next big ranking might be? I have seen a few ideas being tossed around in these comments like screenplays and directors ranked between 251-500, but do you know what you’re drawn to most yet?
@Declan- thanks for the kind words. I’m updating the year by year archives right now (last did it in 2017) and then I’m not sure after that. I do find myself drawn to the auteur/director aspect of things but people do love the actor rankings, too. We’ll see. I’m only on 1939 right now- doing 2-3 a week so this will take me some time to work my way through things and I can think about it
Chaplin directed amazing movies in silent era and after that.. For me, is on my top 5. He touches both eras as no director ever made, and directed great pics (Modern Times, the Great Dictator.. so many..)
Hi @Efren. Who are the other 4?
Interesting, i wonder what Drake would say about this, he calls having Chaplin at #16 ridiculous
You’ve mentioned a small number of films that you think could rightfully be called the single greatest of all time when examined thoroughly. How long do you think the list of directors is that you would accept as number one? How far down the list would it take until you think you could argue against a person’s choice? I know it must be a little farther than twelve, or else you would have parted ways with Matt Harris years ago (Although you’ve implied Kurosawa may be moving up now that you’ve finished your study). What about actors and actresses, or even some other occupations like cinematographers and writers?
@Graham- Interesting. I’m not sure there is a set number But I’d say if you get too far past 25 then either I’m missing something (which can happen- I was wrong or uninformed when it came to Ozu a few years ago) or we’re using different criteria (and at that point I’d disagree with the criteria being used). It may be a little deeper than that for actors and actresses.
I know this website is all about making lists- and hey- I love doing them, debating them— but to it is more about admiring the work from all of them and trying to be as specific as possible (sometimes down to the minute in a film or the frame from the film or a camera movement) as the the reason. Who is worthy of admiration and study and where do you start if you had to prioritize your time? It doesn’t get me too worked up debating Hitchcock vs. Welles or whomever. Why are they in the top tier? Who else is with them? and so on.
I completely agree, and thanks for responding. Admiring and enjoying cinema is much more about just that – enjoyment and admiration – than specificity and analytics. I couldn’t set such a number myself, anyway. Sometimes it is fun to pay attention to the specific moments and superiority of a person’s skills over another, and sometimes I just like to sit back and appreciate the majesty of the movies. That’s “There’s nothing else, just us, and the cameras, and those wonderful people out there in the dark.” And there can also be times of “All right, Mr. (or Ms.) DeMille (or Kubrick, or Coppola, or Hepburn, or Lubezki), I’m ready for my close-up (or filmography study)!”
@Graham- yep we’re on the same page. And I mean if you read my feelings on like director #199 or #228– I’m mean I’m pretty passionate about their work, filmography, style to study and admire. It isn’t like I spend the whole time on the page complaining why they aren’t Kubrick or Tarkovsky. That isn’t the point there. There are so many great directors to discover.
great list, just think Alain Resnais is somehow forgotten there… so sad he is one of my favorites
@Pedro – thanks for visiting the site and for the comment. So Resnais on the list- at #142. But your comment may be saying that he is underrated at #142. I did a quick study of Resnais’ available work in the spring of 2020 so if you search “Resnais” you’ll get my pages for a handful of films. He will be moving up the list the next time I update it based on this study.
Happy to see Hitchcock at the top spot, but why is Rob Reiner so low?
You can click on the director’s name in the list to learn about Drake’s (the creator of the site) opinions. Here is Reiner’s page: http://thecinemaarchives.com/2020/08/08/the-241st-best-director-of-all-time-rob-reiner/. He can explain it better, but Reiner simply does not have the stylistic mastery of cinema to be a top-tier director.
Drake, you’ve always maintained that your best actors lists are different than a “most talented actors” list because a less talented person may have a superb filmography and vice-versa. In theory, how would a most talented directors list for you look? Would that be the same as a list ranking “style-plus” directors? Who might be a rough top five for you on such a list?
@Graham- that’s interesting … The next time I update it I could see whose filmography is rated lowest in comparison with their overall landing spot on the list– that may tell me something. I don’t think I’d get outside of the top 10-20 though to get to those 5 for your list
It would not be something like Tati or Kalatozov that their films are unique but they do not have much depth of work.
Usually the best directors are not the most mediocre.
The ten most talented directors are the top 10.
Usually won’t find low-talented directors like Chaplin being the best, it just doesn’t make sense, to make many of the best movies you need to be the most talented.
You can make a very good movie like many, but you just won’t find the best movies made by untalented directors, just take a look at the top 20, almost all of them are made up of the top 10 directors, it’s called luck in some cases, but luck doesn’t strike many times as you can see with Stanley Donen
Here’s another interesting exercise I just envisioned. What can be considered the signature shot of each of these talented auteurs, or the one that most defines their work? This is not necessarily the same as their greatest shot. I will go in order mentioning the ones for which I have an idea.
Hitchcock – I think the iconic shot of Cary Grant running away from the crop duster epitomizes the master of suspense perfectly.
Kubrick – It is difficult to choose a single image. Perhaps the opening shot of A Clockwork Orange? Semi-symmetrical, unforgiving, and including that famous Kubrickian stare. Another is the pilot riding on the bomb as it falls in Dr. Strangelove.
Bergman – The dance of death is the most memorable, but the choice for Bergman must be some sort of arrangement of faces. I select the beautiful moment in Persona in which the two leads’ silhouetted heads lean together.
Ozu – Every shot in an Ozu film could be regarded as his signature shot. Ebert mentions a simple shot in Tokyo Story where two pairs of shoes are sitting in the hallway of the resort to which the elderly leads traveled to “rest” – perhaps his best “pillow shot.”
I will have more soon.
@Graham- love the exercise. So tough to pick just one. On my 250 individual director pages I’m obviously trying to do this (but I can pick 2, 3 and in some cases can’t help myself and get to 15-20- haha). Of course I could be missing some and some (tough increasing less and less) could be hard to find images of
Continued from the above comment:
Fellini – Any shot that satirizes life as a whole could suffice for this choice. The scene at the end of 8 1/2 where the characters dance around in a circus seems to embody this idea best, but Guido floating away from the sweaty traffic jam in the same film and Marcello wading into the fountain in La Dolce Vita are just as perfect.
Scorsese – The Copa shot in Goodfellas and the one that tracks over to the empty hallway in Taxi Driver are wonderful, but perhaps not the most characteristic of his style. I’ll go with the slow motion (very Scorsesian) moment in the final fight scene of Raging Bull where De Niro leans in waiting on the bars.
Coppola – The superimposed image of Sheen’s upside down head on the exploding forest constitutes my favorite opening sequence in cinema. Effective camera angles, dissolve editing, a contemplative protagonist, and superb openings are characteristic of Coppola.
Tarkovsky – The “candle shot” in Nostalghia of the poet walking back and forth for nine minutes is something absolutely no one but Tarkovsky would have the guts to do, but I think the choice must be the stunning wide shot of the room in Stalker with mounds of sand. Green-gray color scheme and the floor as an element of composition.
Ford – The doorway shot in The Searchers. Duh.
Kurosawa – The image of the swing through the jungle gym in Ikiru is an impeccable one and the old lord walking out of the burning castle in Ran is another, but I will lobby for what may be my favorite closing shot in cinema in Seven Samurai.
Truffaut – It’s pretty obviously the freeze frame that closes The 400 Blows. This gives us three in a row that are the final shot in a movie.
PT Anderson – The Master’s shot of Freddie lying above the sailors on the boat may be Anderson’s most beautiful, but I think Daniel being forced to recount his sins in the church in There Will Be Blood best epitomizes his thematic and visual style.
Ophuls – It must be an energetic tracking shot for Max Ophuls. Perhaps the opening of The Earrings of Madame de…?
Lynch – This one is not as obvious a choice. Perhaps the shot in Mulholland Drive’s Club Silencio where everything becomes dark blue? This incorporates Lynch’s dark, odd and haunting use of color and setting.
Dreyer – The shot to define Dreyer’s work must be a close-up with evocative mise-en-scene. How about the one of Joan praying with the cross behind her in The Passion of Joan of Arc?
Continued again:
Leone – One of Leone’s trademark extreme close-ups might seem better, but I think the frame near the beginning of OUaTitW where Frank’s three duelists square off with Harmonica may be a signature shot for him.
Wong – The saturated orangey image of Cheung and Leung standing by the wall of the hallway beautified by the shadows of bars in ITMFL seems to best illustrate Wong’s mood oriented color design and calm film structuring.
Malick – Any shot in a Malick movie, or at least any focusing on nature (a.k.a. any shot in a Malick movie) would suffice. Perhaps the terrific composition in Days of Heaven where the six silhouetted men are situated in the fields by the mansion watching the locusts rise above is my favorite.
Murnau – Either the shadow of Nosferatu creeping up the stairs or the Man in gazing at the moon by the lake (two in a row shots of silhouette men in fields looking at something above them) in Sunrise is perfect for Murnau. I will select the latter as I believe it includes Murnau’s wonderful gliding camera movement.
Allen – Do I really have to do this (sorry, that’s a reference to a film by the next director :)? It is certainly the iconic photography of Woody and Keaton sitting on a bench by the Queensboro Bridge.
Spielberg – There are many options, but the brilliant silhouette of E.T. and Elliott biking across the moon at night is impossible to resist. Quite Spielbergian.
Beginning here, the number of directors for whom I can decide becomes sparser. I will choose some random ones I can think of quickly for now.
Lean – The beautiful frame of Gasim staggering away into the sunset may be Lean’s most gorgeous shot, but one earlier in Lawrence of Arabia better illustrates his epic scope. It is the extreme wide shot of the dunes with two tiny figures in the distance that introduces us to Arabia.
Altman – Altman is known for his reliance on steady, calm zoom lens usage and his expansive amounts of characters. The shot of Tomlin in the back of the bar in Nashville incorporates both traits.
De Sica – I don’t believe that the moment where Antonio and his son hopelessly sit onto the curb in Bicycle Thieves is the film’s single greatest, but it is certainly the most iconic
Fincher – He is known for dark ligting and subtle color creation, both of which appear in nearly every shot. The final shot of Fight Club watching the effects of Tyler’s scheming may be the epitome of Fincher’s style.
Kieslowski – The choice here must be one with brilliant use of primary colors and fine-tuned formal significance. Any of the shots of the blue mobile in Blue embody these ideas quite well.
Griffith – The crane shot of the massive Babylon gate in Intolerance is the best choice here. Expansive and epic.
Sorry to be flooding the comments, but the site will not allow me to put it all in one entry.
Herzog – Kinski’s speech leaning against the tree in Aguirre is haunting, psychological, and minimalist. Very Herzogian (who says you can’t make an -ian out of every director’s name?).
Bertolucci – The shot of the many-windowed corridor in The Conformist is an immaculate composition and work of lighting like all of Bertolucci’s ouevre.
Mann – De Niro leaning on the post by the window in Heat is a justifiably iconic image. It includes Mann’s trademark use of dark blue as well.
Scott – Blade Runner has Ridley’s famous smoky shadows in all its shots. The one with Rachel holding the cigarette in her hand is a masterful use of lighting.
Peckinpah – Although Peckinpah is mostly known for editing, he slow walk of the four uncaptured members of the group to retrieve their kidnapped comrade is famous for other reasons.
Cuaron – Children of Men and Gravity have many perfect Cuaronian (as I said with Herzog, I’ll make any name an adjective if I like) moments, but the obvious choice is the tracking shot of the family hugging on the beach in Roma. Breathtaking photography and style.
W. Anderson – It must be something symmetrical with bold color design. Perhaps the shot of Monsieur Gustave smiling at the concierge dest of the Grand Budapest?
Tati – There is a composition in Playtime with a man walking down a long hallway in half the frame and two men having a conversation in another. It is a perfect mise-en-scenal (I can make adjectives out of other kinds of nouns, too!) creation.
Gilliam – The fisheye lens shot of the man wearing the baby mask in Brazil’s torture chamber is exactly the absurdism that make his movies so wonderful.
Chaplin – You must have more restraint than any other human on this planet if you have the ability to refrain from laughing at any point in City Lights’ boxing scene.
S. Coppola – The everlasting loneliness of Charlotte sitting next to the window in Lost in Translation is the easy contender here.
Demme – The Silence of the Lambs’ creative close-up shot of Clarice with Hannibal reflected on the glass next to her is the best illustration of Demme’s style.
That’s enough for now. Have I made the correct choices? What may be the signature shot for some of the auteurs I missed?
von Sternberg- the final shot of Morocco as Amy leaves her shoes in the sand and follows the French Legionnaires across the dunes
Rossellini- Shot of Magnani running down the street in Rome, Open City
De Palma- Split diopter of the fish with the ice pick and the Nancy Allen lookalike in Blow Out (alluding to her fate)
Keaton- Charging onward as the Confederate army retreats in the opposite direction in The General (at least epitomizes Keaton’s reluctant heroism)
Stone- the slain Sgt. Elias’ arms outstretched in an obvious allusion to Christ in Platoon
@Graham– man– I am enjoying this. thank you!
Olivier Assayas
Have you seen films from Jean Marie Straub and Danielle Huillet ? If yes, what is your opinion ? I’m looking forward to get to them but I don’t think the films are easy to find.
*I looked again and I was wrong, many of his films are on YouTube. I also found 12 in Grasshopper.
@Cinephile- I have not seen them. I’ve been looking for them but yeah- not easy to find. You and others can probably teach me about finding stuff on YouTube. I know it varies by geography/region but aside from some public domain silent stuff in high quality I’ve stayed away from youtube as a resource. Perhaps I’m missing out
Have you seen Andrzej Zulawski films or specifically On the Silver Globe?
@Cinephile– I have not– I’ve been hunting for Possession for a long time
Thank you for bringing back the comments Drake btw
@Alejandro– thank you to you and everyone else for being patient as I had some issues with the site. I’m hopeful that its fixed.
@Drake – I really hope you manage to view Possession before updating 1981. It is a true game changer. So unique and expressionistic to a fault. I don’t want to get extensively into it, but I’ve watched this and That Most Most Important Thing: Love, and it would be really great to talk about Zulawski on this blog. I’m missing out on On the Silver Globe, which I hear is his most visually and stylistically ambitious effort. @Cinephile, would you recommend it?
@Georg– On The Silver Globe is aesthetically innovative in its visual style but I found the film deeply problematic. Truly overlong, narratively defective, often formally uninteresting (at least to me), maybe it’s “100% unfinished” nature makes it lose some power and if you put there the constant screams of the actors that I really found annoying and exasperating, you can say I didn’t love it. Still, maybe I’d give it a Recommend grade. But to be honest, it felt unwatchable to certain occasions.
@Cinephile- well, I guess you could say Zulawski is somewhat excessive haha. That Most Important Thing: Love didn’t work at all (though both Romy Schneider and Klaus Kinski were tremendous, I’m not even exaggerating, they were amazing here), but his characteristic style is there. Perhaps an R, but even then closer to not being recommended at all. Possession is truly visceral though and has all the trademark traits that one would seek in auteur cinema. I think I’d watch On the Silver Globe out of curiosity, but I take it you don’t think much of it, haha. I can really imagine all those drawbacks you describe.
Watch it bro, i doubt you will be disappointed. Zulawski is a special marvel of European cinema.
I’m sorry friend but Possession it’s on level cult of The Room, meets Suspiria, remake of course. It’s not good cinema. It’s borderline superb though. The screenplay it’s TERRIBLE
The next time you update your list, which directors do you think will move up or down?
@Azman- well first off directors with really strong films between 2009-2020 (and newer) will climb. I used my top 500 as the main skeleton for my top 250 directors list and I have that 10 year moratorium. But beyond that- certainly it feels like Kurosawa will climb, definitely Visconti… I enjoyed the Jarmusch study but he will fall a little (certainly Visconti will go past him)– I’m not sure on others… I haven’t decided what to do next after I update the year by year archives (currently on 1951 so there is a ways to go).
What is your opinion on vulgar auteurism?
@Cinephile- haha interesting- I haven’t heard the term in a few years- it was quite a topic (in cinephile circles) in 2012-2013 I think. I think it is just largely an extension of the normal auteur theory championed by the Cahiers Du Cinema critics and Andrew Sarris— they all saw themselves as finding consistencies throughout a directors work- regardless of genre, budget, popularity and championing those that deserved to be championed— I’d like to think that’s what I’m trying to do in my own little humble way as well (certainly not putting myself in the company of these giants)… what are your thoughts?
@Drake– I find the theory quite interesting. I think many cinephiles, me too when I finally got serious about cinema, have a bias against genres. It’s interesting since many of us cinema lovers, in the before-serious-with-cinema period, we loved the movies that fall into the vulgar auteurism category, then when we finally discover and watch Tarkovsky and Bergman, we become these snobbish pricks that all of a sudden are biased against the films that wouldn’t qualify as “serious” artistic achievements. But then, our cinephilia becomes more mature and we finally appreciate everything. Wow. Quite a journey–haha. I support vulgar auteurism. Especially here in Greece, the local critical community is incredibly skewed on the genres. I’m not saying that every “vulgar” movie must be championed, because many people, in their attempt to be these kinds of controversial or contrarian cinephiles go in the other side and find a masterpiece out of a bad movie. Every film is a craft and must be evaluated as such. To conclude, I’m beginning my journey with the “vulgar” movies, I’ll give them attention probably starting with Paul W.S. Anderson movies and we’ll see from there.
Happy new year guys!
@Cinephile– happy near year to you as well– I agree with you here. But do you see a big difference between “vulgar” auteurism — and the auteur theory in general– I mean if you go back two decades before the phrase with what Tarantino was doing praising genre films, De Palma— or even further back the French critics praising Hitchcock and coining the phrase “noir” for B-movies after WW2? I don’t. I mean I have Refn’s Only God Forgives firmly in my top 100 of the 2010’s as an example— anyways- please report back if you find any films or particular directors worthy of a closer look
@Drake– I fully agree here, you make a great point. Yesterday, I saw The Grey, which I’ve seen people categorize as vulgar auteurism. It’s great, the best film in the Neeson action persona in the last decade or so. Maybe I’ll go in the 2011 page and write more about it.
I Haven’t seen as many films as you’ve seen. But, According to me,
Top 10 Greatest Filmmakers of all Time are:
1. Stanley Kubrick
2. Ingmar Bergman
3. Alfred Hitchcock
4. Kasinadhuni Viswanath
5. Akira Kurosawa
6. Federico Fellini
7. Andrei Tarkovsky
8. Martin Scorsese
9. Jean-Luc Godard
10. Steven Spielberg
@RAVI KIRAN – thanks for visiting the site and for the comment here. This is a great list of filmmakers– I haven’t seen any films from Kasinadhuni Viswanath or heard of him– any particular film to start with if I can locate his films?
If a director were to make a brilliant style-plus film that was the best of all-time or at least on the level of 2001, Apocalypse Now, and such, but then never make another movie at all, where would they land?
I’ve written way too many comments today haha.
@Graham- well it isn’t on the level of 2001 but Andrew Dominik with The Assassination of Jesse James may be the closest example…. he has a couple of other archiveable films (and a new one coming in 2021 that i’m excited about) but the other archiveable films don’t land in the top 20 of their year so this is pretty much it. I have him at 200 here– so certainly if someone made 2001 and that was it– I’d have him/her on the list, and higher than Dominik— I’m not sure how high I’d have to go– Carol Reed at #118?
How much does having a masterpiece or multiple masterpieces, rather than simply a great body of work, impact a director’s placing? If that question is too unspecific, imagine this hypothetical situation (all I seem to ask on this site are hypothetical situations haha): there is a director who has made 20-30 must-see films, but none that rise to the MP level. Using your filmography ranking scale, I would assume this director would land at or near the very top, but the lack work in the very top tier would seem concerning. Roughly where would this director fall on the general list? I know such a director would be unlikely to occur, but it is fascinating to consider.
I’m not Drake, but if you have a shitload of MSs that would mean you’re a great director, a reaaaaaally great director even, but if you don’t have at least 1-2 MPs than can you really be THE best director? Just a thought.
Personally, I’d expect them in the top 20.
@Graham— I think 20-30 Must-See’s is what changes this. I think I have Fassbinder with 5 Must-See’s (I actually think he has at least one masterpiece now but that’s a different conversation) and he’s at #51 on my list. 20-30 is a crazy number– the last time I updated my top 500 Hitchcock had the most total films– so this hypothetical person would pass Hitchcock— even without a masterpiece I don’t see how you could keep them out of the top 10
If you ever get the chance, try to watch Nikos Nikolaidis’s films. One of the best filmmakers to come out of Greece. He makes a truly divergent cinema compared to other Greek movies. They never made films like his in the country.
@Cinephile– thanks— I’ll have to keep an out for his work. I’m not what’s available here.
There are an alarming number of coincidences among the names of cinematic masters. Two of the three greatest French filmmakers are named Jean (Renoir and Godard), and the best actress from France has the female version of the name (Jeanne Moreau). The debut and masterpiece of one of those Jean directors stars an American named Jean (Seberg). The best French director is not named Jean, but one of his muses is (Leaud). The best Swedish director has Bergman as his surname (Ingmar), as does the country’s/world’s greatest actress (Ingrid). Two of the most acclaimed American actress are Hepburns (Katharine and Audrey), and there are at least three notables Keaton actors (Diane, Buster, and Michael). The greatest director of this century and the two greatest mise-en-scene masters of recent times all have the last name Anderson/Andersson (PT, Wes, Roy), as do two of the muses of Bergman (Bibi and Harriet). Leigh is a promising name for actresses (Vivien and Janet), as is Lee for directors (Spike and Ang). None of these people, as far as I know, are related.
There may be many more. I can’t pretend these aren’t common names, but it is fun to explore.
Quite surprised to not see Parajanov on the list.
Definitely a unique style. So i saw his 2 most famous movies (the same ones that you saw and have a review)
I can only assume that you forgot to include it in the final spaces, he should be somewhere near Jodorowsky
@Aldo- I did not forget– I don’t have a big problem if someone wants to make the case for him 201-250 but he just missed the cut
It saddens me that Mikio Naruse is so criminally overlooked in almost every “greatest directors” list I find on the internet. I know I’m in the minority and most people would call it sacrilege, but I personally like him more than Ozu. Now, I know that’s completely subjective and I’m not saying he deserves a top 10 placement, but he should definitely be somewhere in that list.
I would also like to mention Luis García Berlanga and Carlos Saura, two Spanish filmmakers who I think should be included too, especially Berlanga, who somehow managed to avoid Francoist censorship for years and made some of the sharpest satires in European cinema.
That being said, it’s a great list overall. I would make some adjustments in regard to some of the placements, but most of these names I’m 100% on board with.
I can finally comment here.
You did not answer this comment Drake, have you seen any Mikio Naruse movies?
I must admit i had no idea who Mikio Naruse was until @David brought it up.
Definitely the similarities are pretty obvious with Ozu, he even places the camera at ground level, and uses the shoji doors for framing, as well as using Setsuko and Kurosawa actors.
It could be said that he is another disciple of Ozu just like Hsiao-Hsien Hou.
I could see one of his movies “When a woman ascends the stairs”, good movie.
If i remember correctly there are some Naruse movies on Criterion, you should take a look.
@Aldo- yep I missed it- only Floating Clouds- quick mention here in 1955 but no grade as I haven’t seen it in so long http://thecinemaarchives.com/2021/01/12/1955/
It’s been over a year and I would like to backtrack: after revisiting Ozu’s ouvre, I must say that he is a way better director than Naruse, at least from a purely stylistic standpoint, so I was definitely wrong about that. It’s taken me a while to truly appreciate him. That being said, I still think Naruse is better at working with actors, and he elicited some brilliant performances over the course of his career, especially from his muse Hideko Takamine (I would submit films like Yearning, Flowing, A wanderer’s notebook and When a woman ascends the stairs as examples). I still think he deserves some placement on this list for his subtlety, thematic depth and precise editing, even if he’s not as visually startling as some of his contemporaries.
Also, I’m going to take this chance to push for Carlos Saura once more. I strongly recommend that you take a look at some of his work from the 70s because there is a lot to appreciate in them (Raise ravens and Elisa, vida mía are both brilliant films, the latter having tremendous performances from Fernando Rey and Geraldine Chaplin).
Anyway, keep up the good work!
@David- Thanks for the comment- great share. I have much work to do on Naruse – I’m hoping I can do so here later in 2022.
Drake,
Are you familiar with the work of Seijun Suzuki?
He worked a lot in the 60s for Japanese movie studio, Nikkatsu?
He’s clearly an influence on Tarantino and I’m sure a number of other directors.
He currently has 7 movies on the Criterion Channel, I’ve seen 5 of the 7 and was thoroughly impressed by all of them.
I bring him up because I know you’ve said you are a style over substance critic and Seijun Suzuki is certainly style over substance director. Both Tokyo Drifter and Branded to Kill are candidates for best Yakuza movie of all time in my opinion
@James Trapp- great share– so the answer here is no. I’ve had Branded to Kill sitting here ready to go for years– I just have not got around to it yet. Maybe I’ll slide a Suzuki study in soon. Thank you
Consider yourself lucky cause you’re in for a real treat. If you like Tarantino, Jean Pierre Melville, John Woo, and others cut from that same cloth then you definitely appreciate his style. Here is an article about Branded to Kill
https://asianmoviepulse.com/2020/05/film-analysis-branded-to-kill-1967-by-seijun-suzuki-2/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CBranded%20to%20Kill%E2%80%9D%20is%20an,trouble%20at%20a%20mainstream%20studio.
@James Trapp– I’m excited! thank you again
@Drake and anyone else who’d like to chip in: if you gave all the money in the world to these directors and the message “direct whatever the hell you goddamn please,” how do you think their rankings might change?
Orson Welles
Francis Ford Coppola
Michael Cimino
Andrei Tarkovsky
David Lynch
Carl Theodor Dreyer
Sergio Leone
David Cronenberg
Jim Jarmusch
Andrew Dominik
And perhaps others some might mention.
Great question. I think it is rather difficult to determine what would happen for some but fairly easy for others. Dreyer is perhaps the most instantaneous prediction for me. I would assume that he, who demonstrates supreme talent in all elements of cinema but was unable to make films often, would push past some other directors ranked higher on the list. Welles is one that I’m sure many would expect to exceed his level of greatness if he had been able to obtain more financial backing. However, ego played a role in his slight decline as well, which cannot be eased by simply the access to money. Coppola is a similar case, but I don’t believe he lacked funds or artistic freedom for his later career. I would love if Leone had made more movies, but as far as I know, his small resume was a personal choice rather than a negative financial effect. Would having more money and artistic freedom stop Tarkovsky from dying so early? Perhaps that’s a little insensitive. I don’t think he’d change drastically one way or the other. Lynch and Cronenberg seem to have been successful in crafting their odd nightmares exactly the way they like, so I wouldn’t expect either to rise much (I find each slightly overrated as it is). Dominik is an intriguing case. I think we’ll have to wait and see the future of his career before determining the possible effects. This may be a controversial opinion, but I think your hypothetical situation might actually drop Christopher Nolan in average quality. He seems to have a thorough desire to do all he can to complicate his narratives and special effects. I’m worried that too much support would cause him to go haywire with the complexities and begin to ignore the stylistic prowess he possesses.
It’s often said that with Welles he was probably the single most gifted director of all time (and I think there’s a very compelling argument to be made about that) and that if only he had more money and Hollywood threw themselves at his feet constantly he would’ve made the greatest films of all time. I do feel this is somewhat wish-fulfillment but considering how great Welles’ movies are it is an intriguing idea.
With Coppola I do somewhat disagree with you, he had much difficulty finding funding later in his career. One From the Heart was a box-office catastrophe as was Rumble Fish the following year (not that these aren’t great films), followed by yet another bomb in The Cotton Club after that, though it made substantially more money than the previous two. Despite this, 1983’s The Outsiders was a big hit and he often alternated between hit and bomb the next few years until his financial situation forced him into directing The Godfather Part III in 1990, which he never had truly planned to ever make, since it was almost surely to be a hit, and of course it was. He may have had money and artistic freedom (he kept getting directing jobs even as his films failed not unlike Scorsese in the same decade), but in the end he kept losing money forcing him into a project it never really seemed he actually wanted.
With Leone, I’m not entirely sure, I might have misplaced him here but he only made one film in both the 70s and 80s and it might just be better to think of Leone making more, anyway at the time of his death I believe he secured $100M for a Soviet war film called Leningrad to star Robert de Niro that of course fell apart when he died, a shame he left us so early at 60.
With Tarkovsky, I mean idk, maybe you could have him escape to the West sooner so that he doesn’t have to film Stalker in such a hellish environment that ended his life and those of many others (at least hopefully he still makes a Stalker analogue here; it’s just TOO good to lose). However I do agree that I don’t really think he’d change his style, even after he went West nothing much actually changed.
Cronenberg nowadays has found difficulty finding funding for his films and has considered retiring because of it but I do have a vain hope he makes another Dead Ringers or A History of Violence; maybe in the 80s he shoots bigger after The Fly and “lands it” so to speak in the public mind, though hopefully not dropping the quality of his films which were very good in this period.
Lynch, idek, he’s definitely a maverick from Hollywood especially after Dune so I don’t know what changing his funding or reputation could do but it could get Mulholland Drive as a full miniseries (though I fear it might be worse than the amazing end result), more seasons of Twin Peaks early and probably various other things not coming to me right now. And too with Dominik the main problem I guess is just not working enough. We’ll have to wait for Blonde to see if he can pull off another Jesse James.
I agree with your take on Nolan. He seems pretty hit-and-miss which was clear probably more than ever this year with Tenet and giving him like $400M to make whatever he wants will probably not result in an amazing film, but if he writes a script of the quality of Inception than you might have something great on your hands.
You are probably correct with Coppola. You have a bit more insight than me about his financial and production situation. I agree with everything else you have stated as well.
With Tarkovsky, I suppose in this fantastical situation we perhaps could divert his attention away from radiation areas for Stalker. However, I think that’s getting a bit carried away. Hollywood would probably not welcome his calm and very un-New Wave style at that time anyway.
Who says he’s going to Hollywood? He never did when he fled the Soviets in our timeline. He did Nostalghia in Italy and The Sacrifice in Sweden. I’m not going to deny I can absolutely see him coming to America however if for the experience alone. Aside from that, I’m sure there’s going to be some number of screenwriters battering down his door constantly to have their scripts directed by the great Russian. How many of those he accepts – I expect the number won’t be too far north of 0, if that – is up to debate of course.
Good point. I assumed you meant the United States when referring to the West, but I agree that remaining in Europe would be a more fruitful career move.
You may be correct that screenwriters would be eager for him to direct their films, but he would certainly accept few, if any.
I agree with Graham here.
Dreyer is the option.
Give me that Jesus movie
I would say that almost everyone had financial difficulties, except for Nolan.
You could also add Kurosawa tried to commit suicide and had a hard time getting funded in the 70s.
It also adds Griffith. I was basically broke after making the best movie of its time.
There are countless options. As for the others, I’m not sure they fit.
Good point with Griffith, he’s a good pick. Made two MPs then done because even though the first one made the money to fill Fort Knox and more the second one failed. Kurosawa, I mean he had had an entire career by that point and even made a comeback in the 80s so I’m not sure much would change there.
But yes, I’d probably shoot for Dreyer over Welles. I mean to the point where the average time between your films is close to 10 years because of how bad your funding is, but the movies are that great anyway, the world would do great with a few more of them. But I don’t see how, say, Cimino doesn’t fit. He made two great films but everyone hated the second one at the time and well that was it. If Heaven’s Gate isn’t so hated at the time then maybe Hollywood would keep riding the idea of him as the next great Italian and he’d keep making great films. Welles of course definitely fits too as I said, given his difficulties with Hollywood. Indeed, however, the big one is probably Dreyer.
I thought you guys might enjoy Ben Shapiro’s list of the 10 Most Overrated Directors of All Time:
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2010/01/17/top-10-most-overrated-directors-of-all-time
It’s… pretty bad. Kicks it off with bashing the auteur theory and implying that great writing is the key to making a masterpiece, and, well, like he said about David Lean, “it’s all downhill from there.”
The list would have a bit of credibility, if it weren’t for putting Scorsese and Hitchcock on the list.
Looks more like an underrated directors list, Aronofsky, Mann, Lean overrated? mmm
I saw one the other day that Nolan beat Hitchcock and Lean in a poll of the best British director.
Wow, what a dismal failure that list is. To add onto its atrociousness, I would also like to point out that he has included no non-English language directors. Is it because he loves international cinema and finds it gloriously underrated or because he’s barely seen any and knows nothing at all about foreign directors? Naturally, we will all gravitate toward the second answer.
I wonder if he would benefit from discovering and exploring this site. At best, he might gain an understanding of the fact that directors do, in fact, have tremendous power over the success of their films, and that there are indeed stylistic elements that each auteur he mentioned uses to create brilliant masterpieces. More likely, he’d be too ignorant to discover much or any of this and would criticize Drake’s admirable and skillful work as pretentious (an useless and overused word) and unengaging.
The only thing less interesting than Ben Shapiro pontificating about politics is Ben Shapiro pontificating about cinema.
Hey, Drake! How are you doing? I was wondering what your thoughts are on Chantal Akerman. I love many of her films (especially News from Home, which I think is a MP) but she isn’t on your list. Did she just not make the cut or are you not that familiar with her work? Thanks!
Don’t mean to burst your bubble, but News From Home is a documentary, which Drake doesn’t study. Of course she made fiction films as well, which I cannot comment on.
@pedro- doing well thanks- hopefully you’re doing the same. Good question- it is mostly the latter here– the only film of Akerman’s I’ve seen was Jeanne Dielman and I wasn’t very impressed. I’ve sort of put off seeing any of the others but do have that on my list to hopefully cross off in 2021 here. I don’t do documentaries though (or shorts– so not sure that leaves that much) so I won’t be watching those.
Oh, okay. Thank you, Zane and Drake. If we’re talking just fiction, I really enjoyed Je Tu Il Elle, Toute une nuit and Les Rendez-vous d’Anna. It’s a shame you weren’t impressed with Jeanne Dielman, I loved it. Oh well.
@pedro– are you open to sharing what you loved about Jeanne Dielman? I’ve only seen it once- certainly not willing to write it off.
Certainly. I’m sorry for the delay in my response, I hadn’t seen your question.
I think what is very interesting about Jeanne Dielman is how Akerman crafts (1) a very unique narrative and (2) an extremely distinctive dynamic between the viewer and the film.
(1) Akerman shows us a woman (Jeanne Dielman) who lives in a very robotic way and is controlled/limited by this uneventful routine, and little details here and there are what tie everything together. It’s amazing how, by just showing what actually (and exactly) happens, a narrative can be created. Akerman doesn’t need dramatic events (or even any event at all) to tell us everything we need to know about this character. After all, these are the stories that happen the most in real life.
(2) We, as an audience, are thrown into this impersonal “game” between the camera and the environment, and I love playing it. Akerman challenges us, as an audience, to piece things together for ourselves. We never know for sure, for example, how the rooms in Jeanne’s house are connected. We simply find that out by guessing, by seeing her move from room to room. In a narrative where “””nothing really happens”””, little details become the most important thing. We are at all times looking for something new, a new motion, a new expression, a new scenario, even.
A lot of people call it minimalist, but I, personally, can’t 100% agree with that (it is, at the end of the day, a lengthy movie). I would call it spare. And its obsession with the ordinary (maybe not that ordinary) happenings of an ordinary woman is what turns it into a fascinating film.
My knowledge of film is still very limited, so take this comment with a grain of salt, I’m merely listing what I liked about the movie. Also, I apologize if there are any language mistakes. Thanks!
@pedro- Thank you- appreciate you sharing this here very much
You know, when you update your director’s pages in a few years I was thinking it would be a cool idea if you write about a runner-up, which would be a director’s second best film, especially if they’re two films of the same category (MP, MS, HR). Like La Dolce Vita is as deserving of a mention on Fellini’s page as 8 1/2 and such. Ditto with, say, M and Metropolis, Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet, Seven Samurai and Rashomon, and so forth (and I personally would place Mulholland Drive slightly ahead of Blue Velvet but there’s not much separating them of course; I also probably need to rewatch both this year) And the best film of each director should get their own page going into depth on each film that is then reposted on the full director’s page.
How do you think cinema might change if the Academy Award for Best Unique and Artistic Picture, awarded solely to Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans in 1928 at the 1st Academy Awards and then permanently discarded, were still awarded to this day? Might more avant-garde films receive greater public attention?
@Zane- I like that idea. I have never thought about that before. I’m sort of impressed with the Academy at the moment. I’m choosing to be optomistic- but check out the list of the best director winners: Joon-ho, Cuaron, del Toro, Chazelle, Inarritu, Inarritu, Cuaron… nice streak!
True, but there were three pretty wet farts in the years before that: Tom Hooper over Fincher, Nolan, and Aronofsky, Hazanavicius over Malick, Malick, Malick, Malick, and Malick, and then Ang Lee over the Anderson not-brothers and Tarantino.
That award already exists, it’s called the Palme d’Or and it is the most prestigious award in cinema.
@Aldo- It certainly is in some circles- and there have been some very impressive winners. The Golden Lion is right there as well in Venice. I did this exercise with the Palme and Academy Award Winners once year by year and it came out about even– some years they both get it right, some years one is laughably bad, and vice versa. Of course the Palme is only pulling from those who enter where the Oscars can technically pull from the entire field that year.
Drake, in Cannes reward avant-garde films.
What i’m pointing out is that every cinephile knows that the most prestigious award is Cannes.
As you pointed out, films that are not shown cannot win.
Wild at Heart won in Cannes but was not nominated in the others, can you imagine Wild at Heart will be awarded prizes? not me.
They openly choose to ignore these movies.
For example 1978 where an unspectacular movie won (The Knack …and How to Get). Among the competitors is neither Repulsion, Juliet, Pierrot.
And in the other part they weren’t even nominated, i could go on and on.
To top off the superiority of Cannes, la dolce vita won, in the others only was nominated for director and not for film, despite being better than any other nominated film.
For a while, foreign-language films could not be nominated for Best Picture. It’s stupid, I know, but it explains why they were not nominated for Best Picture. For example, Cries and Whispers (side note: I think there’s a compelling argument this is Bergman’s best work but for me that’s still Persona), was not nominated for best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars, since Sweden submitted Scenes From a Marriage that year, but it received a Best Picture nomination. La Dolce Vita too, for example, was not submitted by Italy for Best Foreign Language Film, though it not receiving a Best Picture nomination is a pretty serious misstep.
Also, you mean 1965, not 1978. Can’t think of why you wrote 1978 there.
Lastly, Cannes doesn’t always reward truly avant-garde films, per se. Just 95-98% of the time.
@Aldo- I don’t want to make a big thing of it but I mean that’s just not accurate that “every cinephile knows what the most prestigious award is Cannes”. In 2004 Cannes picked Fahrenheit 9/11 over Oldboy and 2046, in 2016 they picked I, Daniel Blake over American Honey, Paterson, The Handmaiden .. in 2008 another embarrassing year…. In 1965 here the year in question, they would have picked Kwaidan, The Ipcress File, The Hill…. As I said, literally half the time the better film is The Oscar winner.
Have you seen nomadland? It’s expected to win best picture and director. It also did won golden lion.
I have mixed feelings about the movie though , but i mostly liked it.
@M*A*S*H- I have not seen Nomadland. I look forward to it. I should be able to see it here in March
What are some collaborations you would love witness to between two people with different film industry occupations who lived in different eras? Here are some random ideas that drifted into my mind:
Sidney Lumet directing an Aaron Sorkin screenplay
Sven Nykvist shooting a Pawel Pawlikowski film
Buster Keaton starring in a Wes Anderson movie
Thelma Schoonmaker editing a Sam Peckinpah Western
Gregg Toland shooting a Ridley Scott film
John WIlliams scoring a David Lean epic
Juliette Binoche acting in a Carl Theodor Dreyer movie
James Cagney starring as a Martin Scorsese gangster
Paul Thomas Anderson directing a John Huston script
Perhaps I will think of more later.
@Graham– haha I love these- all of them intriguing. Sign me up for Sven shooting a Pawlikowski film if I had to pick just one I think.. but really you can’t go wrong
If you were to expand the top 250 directors list where will Jim Sheridan land?He has the three films that he made with Daniel Day-Lewis and In America as well.And do you actually intend to expand this list?
@Anderson – I certainly plan to expand the list of the top 250 directors. It’ll be some time though. I’m not sure where Sheridan would land. I’m sorry I don’t have a better answer. It has been awhile since I’ve had my mind on that project. My guess is it would be between 251-300.
Oscar nominations have been released!
They seem adequate, but there are some issues. First, I’m Thinking of Ending Things acquired absolutely no nominations. That’s awful. It deserves a spot in the races for Best Picture, Director, and Actress at the very least. Mank garnered a sufficient number of nominations, but it bizarrely does not appear in the Editing category. That’s one of its strongest elements.
Nomadland is expected to lead the pack for many of the awards, which is satisfactory to me. It’s a brilliant work.
I wonder if the Academy will ever allow miniseries or anthologies. Small Axe deserves some nominations, but it has been excluded due to its series categorization.
@Graham- I haven’t seen all of the nominees but certainly I agree with you on I’m Thinking of Ending Things— a shame.
Houston 102? LOL Thats crazy. Hes top 10 easy
@eddit richards– thanks for visiting the site and for the comments. Huston? You have him “top 10 easy”? hmmm.
I believe they are referring to John Huston at 102 (this is the directors’ list). I agree that 102 is rather low, but top ten is also rather unthinkable.
Thirded. Huston is a top 50-100 director of all time. Top 10, however, is laughable.
@Zane- yes, certainly many things on the site are up for debate– but John Huston as a top 10 director is not one of them.
@Graham- of course- thank you for clearing that up
Any director with only 2 masterpieces, no matter how good, would have a very tough time cracking the top 10.
No Wes Craven or Ken Russell?
@Rick- I admire both– Craven just missed the cut- he’d be between 251-300 most likely. I have work yet to do on finding and watching Russell’s films. I saw a really crappy copy of The Devils years ago that really shouldn’t count. TBD there. Hopefully I’ll be able to locate a few yet in 2021.
Sad not to see Ken Russell on this list. He revolutionized the British film industry in the 1960s and 70s. A truly visionary artist, one of the last great eccentrics of Britain. But Warren Beatty is deemed worthy? Hmm.
@Gordon Morrice- Thank you for visiting the site and the comment. I still have some work to do with Ken Russell and locating some of his films
Very Interesting. Mario Monicelli should be here
@max- thanks for visiting the site and comment. Any reason why he should be here?
He was one of the masters of the “Commedia all’Italiana” ,Comedy Italian Style, and, got 6 nominations at the Academy Awards. He was very local, and I’ll explain why. He got an incredibile body of work, was very prolific from 1935 to 2006 as a director and screenwriter and influenced a lot of modern italian directors. He was consistent in his themes, with a very distinguished look on the human condition, rich with a bittersweet humor mixing tragedy and comedy, altough his cynism can be lost in translation. The Great War, Amici miei and The Girl with the Pistol are his gems for me. He worked with the best Italian Actors of the golden age (Mastroiani, Sordi, Toto, Gassman, Tognazzi, Monica Vitti etc). Here is my point: Monicelli was a story teller more than a visual artist, by choice : he didn’t want to hide the actors behind the frame, didnt want to “show off” . For him his direction was focused to serve the actors and the story, the dialogues. To show the reality as is, without embellishment. Neorelism without the pedagogic intent. But he was not sloppy or uninterested in visual story telling, that was just his artistic, autorial, choice. So to me he checks all the requirements of being in this excellent list, but mostly, I just want to highlight a great career, to maybe entice some fellow movie students to try his cinema. (Small time crooks by woody allen is to me an homage to Monicelli’s Big Deal on Madonna Street. Also I recommend An Average Little Man)
@max- thank you for sharing the knowledge here and the recommendation. I’ve seen Big Deal on Madonna Street but I’m not sure if I’ve seen anything else from him yet.
I just visited the TSPDT page for Chantal Akerman, where a quote describes her as “arguably the most important European director of the ’70s and ’80s.” Yeah right. Andrei Tarkovsky who??? And what about any of the 3 Kaisers of the New German Cinema?
Great list! I discovered this a few months ago and have been using it as a personal guide for what films I plan to watch next. It is an extremely insightful list and you make some excellent points. I especially enjoy the mise en scene shots you include–they are captivating. As someone who is trying to learn more about film history and directing, this has been a major help.
A couple of questions I had: What do you think of Panos Cosmatos? Have you seen his film Mandy from a couple of years ago? I found it to be entrancing. He is certainly a stylistic and distinctive director, to say the least. I realize he has only made a couple of films so far. I was just wondering if you had an opinion on what you’ve seen.
Also, I noticed you didn’t include Stanley Kramer on your list. He has several great films. However, he is not known as a stylistic director and most of his films are dialogue driven. Opinions?
Keep up the great work. I look forward to seeing updates on active directors.
@Scott- thank you for the kind words regarding the website- I’m happy to hear you’ve found it useful. I’m a big admirer of Mandy. I was lucky enough to catch it in theater in 2018 and have been itching to get back to it since… I have a page for it here with my first impressions: http://thecinemaarchives.com/2018/09/18/mandy-2018-cosmatos/
I’ve had Beyond the Black Rainbow on my list to see for quite some time but just have not got around to it yet.
I have seven Stanley Kramer films in the archives (below) which is an impressive number for any director. I’ve seen them multiple times and these are good films. So it isn’t that I think he’s a bad director. He isn’t. But he was one of those “important” directors, racking up a lot of awards and such because of the serious messages in his films– not necessarily because of artistic merit. I just simply think there were many superior directors during that era.
1958- The Defiant Ones
1959- On The Beach
1960- Inherit The Wind
1961- Judgement at Nuremberg
1963- It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
1965- Ship of Fools
1967- Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner
Does anyone know any of the most famous “guilty pleasure” movies of directors? PTA’s love of absolute trash films is well documented, hell he even made an Adam Sandler movie (which is not the same as a movie starring Adam Sandler mind you), in addition to once saying the MCU gets too much hate, and I do believe I remember hearing about David Lynch loving some not-so-well-recieved films as well. On top of those, Stanley Kubrick loved White Men Can’t Jump, and so I’ve heard he died with Kingpin in his DVR. Similarly, Ingmar Bergman was known to have owned Beverly Hills Cop and Anger Management, and Terrence Malick is a huge fan of Zookeeper with Ben Stiller.
Are there any others that anybody knows of?
List:
PTA: Anything with Adam Sandler
Stanley Kubrick: White Men Can’t Jump, Kingpin
Ingmar Bergman: Beverly Hills Cop, Anger Management
Terrence Malick: Zookeeper
Tarantino loves many mediocre B-movies, though I don’t know any of their specific names.
Damn, you’re right! How did he not immediately come to mind?
Where is Lina Wertmuller??????
@Joe- I have more work to do here. I do have The Seduction of Mimi and Seven Beauties in the archives but it has been so long since I’ve seen them I don’t have a grade for them. I’d have to see them again and have one or both land in the top 100 of the 1970’s for Wertmuller to have a shot on the top 250 list.
I’m not saying it is gospel- but for what its worth the consensus list doesn’t have her on the top 250 or any of her films on the top 1000 either https://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top250directors.htm
Your pick for the greatest film composer of all time? It pains me to say it, but I’ll have to narrowly go with Herrmann above Morricone.
I have trouble picking between my top four – Williams, Hermann, Morricone, and Steiner. But for sheer quality and depth of work, I have to go Williams. Jaws, Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back (which introduced the Imperial March), Indiana Jones, Superman – how can you go past a resume like that?
There is a really fantastic podcast called The Soundtrack Show which dedicates several episodes at a time to breaking down the score for different movies. They have covered a lot of those Williams scores I mentioned, but my personal favourite episodes are those on LOTR. He takes a very formalist approach much like Drake to analysing these pieces of music. Very highly recommended.
@Zane and @Declan– Good stuff here- thanks to both of you for sharing. And thanks for the recommendation on the podcast!
@Zane and Declan- I’ve probably shared this before- and there’s a bit of a recency bias- but this is worth checking out if you haven’t already https://pitchfork.com/features/lists-and-guides/the-50-best-movie-scores-of-all-time/?page=1
Yeah, I remember reading about Under The Skin getting the #2 spot on its Wikipedia page or elsewhere. Even then, I’d not go quite that far, I mean the #2 film score of all time? Come on, but I wouldn’t argue with anyone who puts it on their top 50, and I wouldn’t surprise myself if I eventually do so myself. That’s an excellent score.
Is anybody else voting in the TSPDT poll? Here’s what I have at the moment:
https://boxd.it/bM0PO
Citizen Kane
Apocalypse Now
Andrei Rublev
8 1/2
Stalker
L’Avventura
Mulholland Drive
Vertigo
Bicycle Thieves
Psycho
Jules and Jim
Breaking the Waves
Barry Lyndon
Seven Samurai
Touch of Evil
The New World
The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover
Heat
Naked Lunch
Lawrence of Arabia
The Discreet Charm of The Bourgeoisie
Last Year at Marienbad
Wild Strawberries
Chinatown
The Graduate
~~~
Had to remove The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance which sadly leaves this list without a Western. I still have a month before the poll is up so there’s a chance I might decide to put one or both of them back on there (Liberty Valance is more likely).
In case any of you are interested, Declan, Graham and I have started a Discord server that Graham recommended I post here: https://discord.gg/KnWvZkCRYB
@Zane- thank you- I’ll check it out- perhaps when I get caught up on some of the issues here on the site I’ll be able to use it or check it out more.
Out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to place the given name first for Asian directors who do not arrange their names that way? I understand the desire for conformity and don’t find it a huge issue, but Hong Kong’ greatest filmmaker is not named Kar-Wai Wong; he’s Wong Kar-Wai. The same goes for Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Lee Chang-dong, and Zhang Yimou. Most other sites do not refer to them the anglicized way, with the occasional exception of IMDb, a complex database that requires a little more conformity to succeed.
@Graham-Drake uses the iMDB name for these directors. In iMDB he is called Kar-Wai Wong. He also uses in almost all the time the release year for a film according to iMDB. That’s why films like The Assistant and Sound of Metal which feel like 2020 films are listed as 2019 films. I think that is the reason.
@Graham- Yep, I follow IMDB here.
Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god. I was on Henry Hathaway’s page on TSPDT when it accidentally glitched out and, instead of giving me just his films, it gave me every single film ever entered into TSPDT! I don’t know if this glitch will work for you, but I was on Google Chrome for iPhones and as I said it was Henry Hathaway’s page.
I know now that the first film on the TSPDT Top 1000 of all time is George Méliès’s A Trip to the Moon, the second and fourth are Louis Feuillade’s Fantômas and Les Vampires (he has the second and fourth films ever on the top 1000 and this guy doesn’t have a page on TSPDT???), the third, fifth and sixth are D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation, Intolerance, and Broken Blossoms, and the seventh is Robert Wiene’s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, followed by such works as Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler and Nosferatu.
The most recent film on the TSPDT All-Time Top 1000 is Toni Erdmann in 2016, but so as not to leave a sour taste in Drake’s mouth I’ll tell him that beyond that are Mad Max: Fury Road, Boyhood, Under the Skin, The Act of Killing, Holy Motors, The Master, Amour, Melancholia, The Tree of Life, Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, A Separation, The Turin Horse, Certified Copy, The Social Network, Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives, and Nostalgia for the Light from the preceding decade.
The first film on the TSPDT 21st Century Top 1000 was Devils on the Doorstep in 2000. The first films on the All-Time Top 1000 from the current century are As I was Moving Ahead I Saw a Glimpse of Beauty, accompanied by In Vanda’s Room, Dancer in the Dark, Werckmeister Harmonies, The Gleaners and I, Songs From the Second Floor, In the Mood for Love, Amores perros, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Yi Yi, Code Unknown, Memento, Platform, and Requiem for a Dream in 2000; quite a lineup. The most recent film currently on the TSPDT 21st Century list is City Hall, immediately preceded by Shirley.
Is what you saw the same as the Greatest Films Starting List: https://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_startinglist_table.php ? That can be accessed on the 1000 greatest films page. There’s also the Excel version, formatted a little differently: https://www.theyshootpictures.com/resources/StartingList.xls .
No, it was every film in the order of their release. I’m coming back here because I just had the same thing happen on Anthony Mann’s page.
That’s super exciting. And cool !!!
I’m really wondering about some of Cannes’ choices these past few years
https://variety.com/2021/film/global/f9-fast-furious-cannes-film-festival-1234989907/
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/cannes-john-travoltas-gotti-screen-competition-1107227/
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/grace-monaco-open-cannes-film-673769/
@Zane- I, also, was disappointed about the news of the “big” movie today. I thought Cannes had a big 2019 comeback (obviously no show in 2020) but had been losing ground to the fall festivals (Venice, Toronto) prior to 2019.
I started doing my own version of Director Studies, so far Orson Welles, Wong Kar Wai, and finishing up Vittorio De Sica.
I’m trying to decide next between these 3 choices:
1. Francis Ford Coppola
2. David Fincher
3. Jean Luc Godard
Feel Free to weigh in
I did the same thing myself haha, started with Tarkovsky then did Bergman and WKW, did a belated journey into Godard that I got about 9 films into and just haven’t continued for some reason, and I’ve done brief visits into Welles, Fellini, Hawks, and Kalatozov that I may pick back up, and I’m now considering Bunuel, Renoir, Dreyer, Bresson and a few others (leaning Bunuel but not by much) and I don’t know where to go anymore at this point as I’ll be really busy these next few weeks.
I’d personally recommend you go with Godard, I was really amazed by what I found in his filmography and it changed how I feel about him. I used to judge him mostly by some of his opinions about cinema which are very questionable and by a lot of what he’s been doing from Weekend onwards but his work before that is something truly exceptional and I’d describe A Woman is a Woman, Vivre Sa Vie, Contempt (especially this), Band of Outsiders, Pierrot le Fou, Alphaville, and Weekend as some of my favorite films now, and I even quite like Made in USA which Declan sadly hated. That being said my recent viewing of The Conversation was an absolute stunner, should end up well in the top 100 if nothing changes and there’s a great argument that you should pick Coppola instead.
You really inspire me to study De Sica who alongside Rossellini I’ve been looking at lately. I hate that I’ve only seen Bicycle Thieves so far as it’s so good and 5 months on I’ve seen nothing else.
There aren’t too many who can write dialogue quite like Godard:
Pierrot le Fou: “You speak to me with words and I look at you with feelings”
A Woman is a Woman: “We should boycott women who don’t cry”
Weekend: “Would you rather be screwed by Mao or Johnson?” “Johnson, of course.” “Drive on Jean, he’s a fascist.”
And don’t even get me started on the bit about Dean Martin’s ass in Contempt.
@Zane – thanks for weighing in, yeah I think I’m leaning toward Coppola but will ultimately cover Godard, Fincher, and others.
Yeah, I strongly suggest De Sica, I’ve made a few posts on the De Sica page. Umberto D. is definitely a masterpiece near the level of Bicycle Thieves in my opinion. He’s versatile though and has some lighter comedy material as well which still is in the style of Neorealism. Sophie Loren and Marcello Mastroianni do some great work in the later De Sica films.
Hmm I wouldn’t say I hated Made in USA. I’ve seen it twice now and gave it a Recommend, which may be underrating it compared to Drake’s HR/MS, but still isn’t really hate.
Declam, who are you? I was talking to an individual by the name of Declan, with an n at the end.
Jokes aside, I did not actually see you gave it a second watch. But the first time, which I did notice, you did not archive it, which is what I was talking about here.
Haha all good, I wrote that about 5 minutes after waking up this morning hence the mistake. I’m giving the higher ratings you and Drake gave it the benefit of the doubt since you both watched it as part of Godard studies. I haven’t ruled out moving it higher, hopefully I’ll come round on it (and First Name Carmen) when I do my own proper Godard study.
In fact, Mr. Green and I have participated in an official letter swap; he will henceforth be legally documented as Declam, and I as Grahan. Substituting letters in one’s name with another being of the same species is the first step instrumental in reaching the evolutionary state necessary for consideration by the Monolith to evolve a life form into the Star Child heavenly form.
I recently completed a Roy Andersson study comprising Songs from the Second Floor; You, the Living; A Pigeon Sat on a Branch Reflecting on Existence; and About Endlessness. It was my first real “study,” and I would highly recommend that you venture through it as well if you haven’t seen any of his films. It’s a relatively short investment of time and I think those four movies probably work best when placed together.
I just checked him on TSPDT (I’ve been to his page here a few times) and I must say he has great taste with his favorite films being Amarcord, Andrei Rublev, Barry Lyndon, Bicycle Thieves, and Rashomon. I’ve been interested in his films for a little while due to the interesting look of his films so he’s an idea I might try, but I’ll put him on the list for now.
The Jonathan Glazer page has the issue.
@Graham- and @Malith- thank you again for your help here
@Drake
Also? there is an issue with Howard Hawks page
@Mad Mike- your help is much appreciated here. Yes- and it should be fixed now.
Also an issue with the Tim Burton page
@Harry- thanks- should be good to go now. Thank you for the heads up
After finishing my second viewing of every wes Anderson film (i have seen grand Budapest 10+ times) I was thinking about great filmmakers with great visual style who are also equally great writers with specific style of writing. Here’s my take (I’m not including Kubrick, Coppola and Welles. They are excellent writers but are even better filmmakers)
1. Coen brothers
2. Wes Anderson
3. Paul Thomas Anderson
4. Woody Allen
5. Tarantino
What are your thoughts on it? Am I missing someone? I would love everyone to participate.
Great collection – you have included many I would include. I think Bergman is a clear omission. His visual style is obviously great (faces, tight close-ups, stark imagery, strict color design), and his thematic screenwriting (thoughtful monologues interspersed with silences, internal crises, spiritual uncertainties) is masterful too. Godard is a possible choice as well. His storywriting and plot construction are not necessarily perfect, but he is a master of clever, subversive dialogue and a style that seems both brilliantly conscientious and nonchalantly careless.
Wilder is arguably an even greater screenwriter than any of these people, but his cinematic style is not as rigid. Antonioni has the opposite strength. Due to recent events (a.k.a. I’m Thinking of Ending Things), I’d say Kaufman is a worthy choice, but perhaps he has not done enough direction to solidify a particular visual style.
It is difficult to determine the eligibility of filmmakers whose greatest scripts were co-written by other people, such as Welles, Coppola, Fellini, Kubrick, and more.
That’s great that you’ve seen Grand Budapest more than ten times haha; it is an all-time favorite of mine.
Bergman and godard are excellent. I was also thinking Mike Leigh, baumbach and gerwig.
Agreed about wilder. Kaufman and Schrader are 2 of the writer turned filmmakers who are navigating excellently (unlike Sorkin).
Agreed on these guys as well.
Grand Budapest is one of my favorite as well.
God we are on same page about everything.
@Drake
There is an issue on Bigelow page.
Are there any directors you’d prefer to transplant to another place or time? Perhaps a contemporary director who could create greater cinema in the silent era, or an old director who would benefit from the advent of current technology and more elaborate special effects and sets? How about an American who would succeed better in the international cinema world, or a foreign director who would be better off in high-profile Hollywood? Is there a director from the black and white era or digital cinema age who deserves large-format Technicolor, or vice versa?
@Graham- I’d certainly like to see Welles today. I think he’d have an easier time getting at least a little bit of money for his passion projects. This is where my head goes immediately with this question. Guys like Sam Fuller. Perhaps I’m wrong though. What do you think? I’d love to see Kalatozov with less political restrictions and just an unlimited budget too.
Welles is a great suggestion, and Kalatozov perhaps an even better one. The weightless camera movement, crane shot, and canted-angle close-up loving Russian master was certainly able to push beyond his propagandist obligations to become a stylistically free and untethered auteur. Nonetheless, one must wonder what he could craft without the hindrance of political duties. I bet he’d make a formidable competitor to Cuaron as far as rapid movement long-shot/creative mise-en-scenists go.
One has to wonder how Griffith might fare in more recent times. Of course, I wouldn’t want to remove the massive influence he had on cinema’s future in the 1910s, so let’s assume there’s someone else to carry that duty in the hypothetical. If Griffith could clean up his racial opinions or change them entirely, I think he’d benefit from fewer budget constraints, better sets, the possibility of sound, and a larger audience appetite for massive scale and scope within the age of epics (1955-65 or so).
Eisenstein is a possibility for time period boosting whose reasons lay almost halfway between Kalatozov and Griffith: the possibility for more elaborate film production like D.W., and the necessity to escape Leninist political ideals like Mikhail.
We could try to move around some of the directors who died early, such as Tarkovsky, Murnau, and Fassbinder, to see if modern lifestyle or life in a different country could keep them alive for a bit longer, but perhaps that wouldn’t have much effect.
Controversial directors would be more comfortable in a more recent time where their subjects would not be so touchy. Perhaps Pasolini a few decades later would help? Powell may seem old-timey by today’s standards, but the taboo undertones of Black Narcissus and Peeping Tom would be better understood in a less restrained time.
Some directors would be nice to see in the 1940s-50s noir period, though I’m not sure they necessarily need to move. I’m referring to people like David Fincher, Fritz Lang, or Jean-Pierre Melville. Perhaps Damien Chazelle would be a little happier living in the 1950s Technicolor time? I’m not sure.
Kurosawa was more respected in the United States than in Japan, so I wonder if he could succeed better working here. Perhaps we’d have more fruitful work from him during the 1970s period in which he nearly ended his life.
At first glance, Roy Andersson seems a prime choice for transplanting to some earlier time: he does not need modern technology like digital cameras or a Steadicam; people in the past were more tolerant of slower films and physical comedy; his production design does not include especially modern looking props or design; and his characters toil through timeless struggles. However, for a certain reason, I think Andersson is actually living at precisely the right time. I wrote a comment that no one saw on his page describing differences between Roy and comparable auteurs, and I will reiterate what I said about Tati’s primary difference: Tati’s movies were about the birth of modernism, and the resulting frenetic confusion, while Andersson’s are about the death of modernism, and the resulting melancholic stagnancy. That wouldn’t have the same devastating effect in the past.
There are some directors who seem essentially timeless, and could succeed at any time. Hitchcock lands squarely in the category, as there have always been people with a ravenous appetite for intelligent thrillers. Wes Anderson in some ways seems very modern and groundbreaking, but a part of me would love to walk into a theater in 1920 and see a double feature of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and a version of The Grand Budapest Hotel. One half of the brain could comment on clear similarities such as great set design, seminal composition, and entertaining and twisted narrrative, while the other half could notice large differences, such as the lopsided world vs the symmetricality, the oblique angles vs the crisp parallel lines, and the dramatic thriller vs the deadpan comedy. Bela Tarr is completely timeless in terms of his themes, but I wonder if he’d suffer without the modern Steadicam. He might replace the role of Murnau back in the twenties; I wonder if it would actually be advantageous to swap their places so Murnau was current and Tarr a silent film master.
In some ways, it’s actually more interesting to discuss the people that shouldn’t be transplanted. For example, Christopher Nolan seems so fervorously modern, so inextricably linked to special effects, the Hollywood blockbuster structure, and contemporary complexity. How would he fare as a silent 1920s Polish indie director? Could he successfully adapt to such a circumstance, or would we lose his greatness?
@Graham Well thought out. Especially liked your points about Wes, Nolan and Roy Andersson. I think that maybe John Frankenhaimer would have thrived if he stared later (although this way he wouldn’t have extensive tv experience and if I remember correctly he had a lot of personal problems in the 70’s and 80’s). And maybe Tod Browning? If I understand correctly, he suffered due to censorship.
Soviet directors are an interesting case. Because sure, I would love to see what they can do without ideological constrains, but on the other hand Hollywood would put another set of limitations on them. Like, I really cannot imagine Hollywood making Come and See in the form we received(maybe Europe could be great artistic/commercial compromise, especially in the 60s).
Also, many Soviet directors found interesting and creative ways to subvert these restrictions, which is precisely what made their movies great.
Oh, I remembered another one, Jules Dassin. I wish he wasn’t blacklisted. He was on such a roll in the second half of forties. And as far critical opinion goes, he wasn’t great after Rififi (I haven’t seen myself movies after Rififi yet). On the other hand, we lose Rififi and maybe Night and the City, which hurts.)))
The Zhang Yimou page is devoid of text.
@Graham- thank you- should be fixed now
@Drake Hi, there are issues with Bava,Joe Wright, Schrader and Cukor pages.
@Mad Mike- ugh– thank you so much for this. And sorry for the issues on the site. Should be fixed now
No problem. Hope we will catch them all very soon.)
where is Tsai Ming-liang?
@Drake Kiarostami page is broken
@Mad Mike- thank you, should be fixed
Do you know Glauber Rocha??
@Gustavo Mello- Not really well enough. I have seen Black God, White Devil- but it has been 15 years or so and the copy of the version I saw wasn’t ideal
If you have time to check out his movies.
He is the greatest director in Brazil and has been highly praised by directors such as Scorsese, Pasolini and Bong Joon-ho.
I would like to know if he would have a space on that list.
@Gustavo Mello- Absolutely- he and his work are very well respected. I do have a poor transfer dvd copy of Black God, White Devil but as I said have been holding out to find something better.
Drake, if there was a scenario where “Mr. Y” had directed The Searchers (currently number one on your all-time films list) and it’s the only film he had ever directed, and “Mr. X” had directed Nosferatu The Vampyre (currently number 500 on your all-time films list) and it’s the only film he had ever directed. About where would “Mr. Y” rank on the list and where would “Mr. X” rank?
@RK- interesting hypothetical. So the Mr. X question is easy to answer- Mr. X wouldn’t be one of the top 250 directors on the list. Mr. Y is more difficult. I’d say between 80-100 maybe? There would be other small factors so it’s hard to determine. It wouldn’t be the same as like Falconetti on the female list (#27)
@RK – I asked a similar question on the Francis Ford Coppola page, only I asked where would he would be ranked if he had only directed 3 films, The 1st and 2nd Godfather and Apocalypse Now and Drake said somewhere between 20-35, so around 27 would be the middle of that range. Woody Allen is number 27 and he has 33 archivable films including several MPs so that shows the power of huge MPs like Godfather level films.
Why Thomas Vinterberg isn`t part of the list?
Because he is much better then, for example Tom Hopper or Jeff Nichols.
He wouldn`t be in top 100, but he should be in top 250.
Archivable movies:
The Celebration
The Hunt
Another Round
@RujK- Well for one this page was written before Another Round was released. I think Vinterberg has an argument over Tom Hooper or Jeff Nichols- but they’re in the same class, even with Another Round. “Much better” feels like a reach.
Well Pedro Costa is better than all of them😉
@Drake – There is an issue with Preston Sturges page.
@Mad Mike- appreciate the help and sorry about that. Should be fixed now
Hi, Drake. Following Mad Mike’s comment… maybe it’s just for me, but I think there are issues with both Bi Gan pages you have (Kaili Blues and Long Day’s Journey Into Night). On my phone it works fine, but on desktop there’s no content for some reason.
@Pedro- Thank you for pointing these out. Sorry- and they should be fixed now.
I’ve mentioned this before but you have to see Angelopoulos. The Travelling Players is available in the Stremio app with subtitles, so is Alexander the Great in the best quality you can find them. Probably his two most well known films, Landscape in the Mist and Eternity and a Day, are also available. He’s probably one of the handful masters left you haven’t gotten into.
Drake,
Curious if you’re planning to do a Seijun Suzuki study? I know I mentioned it at some point.
@James Trapp- for sure, on my short list– I just finished Michael Mann so was thinking of maybe doing one or two directors between the two from a different genre
He’s not quite a heavy hitter so I can’t say I’m surprised he’s missing from this list, but William A Wellman has a pretty sturdy resume with Wings, The Public Enemy, and The Ox-Bow Incident, all of which are in the top 10 of their respective years. Since he isn’t in the top 250, he surely wouldn’t be that far below the threshold right?
@Declan- I just know he wasn’t in the next 10-15 after 250. The resume is very solid (below)
1927- Wings HR
1931- Public Enemy HR
1933- Wild Boys of the Road R
1937- A Star Is Born R
1937- Nothing Sacred R
1942- The Ox-Box Incident HR
1948- Yellow Sky R
1949- Battle Ground R
1954- The High and the Mighty
1954- Track of the Cat R
1955- Blood Alley R
I am just finishing up on a Terence Malick study (1 film left)
Next I am considering the following directors in no particular order
– Roman Polanski
– Oliver Stone
– Jean-Pierre Melville
Any thoughts? All are welcome to weigh in
Bresson is about 50 places low and Au Hasard Balthazar is among the ten best films ever made, let alone 500.
Would include Audiard and Vinterberg. How is Ari Aster included (for 2 interesting, but imperfect films)? Bresson should be higher.
@Leroux- thank you for visiting the site and sharing your thoughts here.
Also, any thoughts on Claude Chabrol and Koreeda? For interest, were any of Stephen Frears, Neil Jordan or Jim Sheridan close? Shane Meadows or Bruno Dumont? Thanks
How far off the list would successful, prolific, yet less stylistically adept directors such as Ron Howard and Stanley Kramer land?
@Graham- I think I’d get to 300 before them. I do plan on expanding the list at some point.
I watched a fun podcast on Quentin Tarantino from The Ringer (link below), it’s a site that follows both sports and pop culture including films. In the podcast three of the writers on the site talk Tarantino and make there top 5 lists for him. Around the 8:20 mark (podcast is 65 min) one of the site’s writers, Chris Ryan, says that Tarantino movies always feel like a national holiday. He said they feel like an event in a way that is different from any other filmmaker. This got me thinking, which director do you get the most excited for? I think this is a different question than who is your favorite filmmaker or who do you think is the best; of course it’s possible that you could pick the same director to all 3 of these questions.
For me:
Best Living Director: Martin Scorsese
Favorite Living Director: Martin Scorsese
Director Most Excited For: Quentin Tarantino with Scorsese and Fincher not far behind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6__dKWSWjK0&t=862s
Andre De Toth?
@James Douglas- Thank you for visiting the site and the comment. What’s the case for De Toth? I have a few films in the archives but maybe there is something I haven’t seen but should.
Great list! I was surprised not to see, Frederick Wiseman. He’s 91 and still making documentaries.
@Christian H- Thank you for the comment and for visiting the site. I do not watch or study documentaries so that is not part of this.
Who would be your top directors if you only counted films from the 21st century?
@JustPassingBy- That would be a fun exercise. It would take some work. I do have this for a start for the 2010s http://thecinemaarchives.com/2020/01/21/the-10-best-directors-of-the-2010s/. Of course this omits a few that would show up in the conversation for sure like Haneke, WKW, The Dardennes…. but PTA, Wes, Cuaron, Nolan, Fincher, Tarantino also had a strong 2000s as well. Roy Andersson would be there.
@JustPassingBy – I think Nolan might have the strongest case since all of his major work was made in the 21st Century. He has 3 definite MPs with The Dark Knight, Inception, and Dunkirk plus Memento, Interstellar, and Dark Knight Rises which are not quite MPs but still very strong
With PTA you have to exclude 2 of his huge MPS in Boogie Nights and Magnolia.
With Tarantino you take away Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown
With Fincher there is no Seven or Fight Club
Thanks for the reply!
I am writing down a watchlist of 500 directors, but I need around 20 more names, so if anybody knows any talented obscure or underrated directors, I will be happy to hear about them.
@RujK- id say add Jerry Schatzberg (Scarecrow, Puzzle of a downfall child) if you haven’t already.
@RujK Nanni Moretti
@RujK – Late reply but Marco Ferreri if you haven’t already put him on the list.
@RK- thank you for reply, but I already put him on the list. It`s funny, I put him on the list yesterday when I was just looking around with which directors work Ugo Tognazzi and then I saw that Ferreri directed The Grand Bouffe so I put him on the list.
What are your thoughts on Lina Wertmüller? I think she was one of italian cinema’s most underrated auteurs. Not sure if you’ve archived any of her work but she is a very interesting and unique artist.
Ce- I have The Seduction of Mimi (1972) and Seven Beauties (1975) in with a page for the latter here http://thecinemaarchives.com/2021/08/27/seven-beauties-1975-wertmuller/
I am a film student and recently took a screenwriting class with the biggest anti-auteurist of them all. He literally started off the class with a powerpoint saying “the auteur theory is a bunch of bullshit”, can you believe that? I understand a screenwriter may take issue with “auteur” as a term (his argument was that such a theory discredits his own work and I guess that makes it more personal to him) but his insistence that films owe so much to their scripts, I simply couldn’t disagree with more.
My interpretation has always been that auteur theory certainly doesn’t apply to all films, only to those select artists that are clearly the ones driving the ship. His continuous discrediting of film style was incredibly frustrating to listen to as well, he often likened it to theater (he said “you never want to leave the theater remembering the costumes”)….as if the visual arts are not a massive part of…..watching a film? It was so frustrating to sit through.
@Ce- Oh wow- thanks for sharing this. Sounds like this teacher would hate my website.
definitely but it says more about his own credibility and taste than anything. keep doing what you’re doing with this fantastic site! I appreciate how much thought is put into your lists and reviews. I really have a feeling this site will have an impact on future young cinephiles in helping them discover the great works and cultivate their own tastes.
@Ce- thank you- appreciate the kind words here
Give the same screenplay to two differents directors (say Wes Anderson & Quentin Tarantino).
Not the same movie.
Name any Director you would’ve loved to work in a genre they never made a film in. My pick is Luchino Visconti directing a war film.
@Zane – Andrei Tarkovsky directing a screwball comedy…just kidding
Scorsese directing a Western would be interesting, The Searchers is a huge influence on Taxi Driver. I think the types of themes Scorsese often worked with, characters particularly males seeking various forms of personal redemption would make for an interesting film. Also, Gangs of New York has elements of a Western and even though it’s not my favorite of his films I think it showed promise early on but had some flaws that were hard to overcome (miscast characters being one).
Tarantino making a straight up Horror film would be interesting as he is so effective at taking classic genres and adding his own flavor, he’s done work in so many genres; Samurai, Heist, blaxploitation, gangster, western, and you could argue war with Inglorious even if it is very different from any other war film. A straight up Horror would be exciting.
btw Visconti directed The Leopard which is not exactly a war film per se but takes place during a war and there is some violence in the streets but I assume you mean a more standard war film, I agree that would be interesting.
Senso is set during the Second Italian War of Independence and, while they’re far from the focus of the film, the few battle scenes it has are really something to behold. I’d have adored to have seen Visconti make a Napoleon biopic or something (I know Kubrick was planning one but I’d rather have him still get sidetracked and end up making Barry Lyndon instead while Visconti makes Napoleon).
You make me wonder what a Mikhail Kalatozov screwball comedy would look like with the camera backflipping around in every scene.
@Zane – Another that comes to mind would be Terence Malick making a disaster/apocalypse film. The Tree of Life depicts with absolutely stunning images the birth of the universe and earth. And then after that the beginning of life on earth with dinosaurs. I think Malick making a film like this makes sense not only because of the spectacular imagery but it also fit with Malick’s frequent themes regarding the indifference of nature to mankind or as Nick Nolte’s character in The Thin Red Line tells the Elias Koteas character “nature is cruel Staros”.
Hi Drake. Huge fan of the site. When do you think you will make a Best of 2020 & 2021 list? Are you waiting for more films to make it into the archives before you start on that? Just wondering since I really enjoy your Best of the Year lists.
Also, what did you think of Licorice Pizza? I liked it a lot, as well as the youthful vibe and ’70s California atmosphere, but thought it was far from PTA’s best. Not as stylistic as Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood, Punch Drunk, etc.
Though now that I think about it, the arcade scene had great mise en scene. I may need another viewing to fully appreciate it, but I did enjoy a lot of it
@Scott- Thanks for the comment– glad you like the site. So I put up 2016 today and it takes me about a week to do each page so I’m only a few weeks away from doing 2020 and 2021. I had plans to get there already but fell behind. I saw Licorice Pizza in theater a December. I am very excited to get to it again but would agree it seem far from PTA’s best (certainly not an insult) upon first blush.
@Harry- very much appreciate your help here
Did you make this list before you had seen The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari? Surprised not to see Robert Wiene with a masterpiece of that caliber (your #56 film of all time) Admittedly I haven’t seen any of his other work, but I know The Hands of Orlac is highly regarded, and surely these fellows at the bottom with zero top 100 films of their respective decades can’t have a better case?
@Max- Nope, I had already seen The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari when I created and completed this list. Good food for thought here.
What are some directors that died way too young with maybe just one feature film or two, but they already found their style and had very promising start?
Of course first one should be Jean Vigo, but I would like to mention Sadao Yamanaka- I saw Humanity and Paper Balloons and been pretty blown away (I gave it MS after one viewing), it’s a stunning visual and formal achievement. I wrote in my notes “if Yamanaka didn’t die so young, he would be mentioned in the same sentences as Ozu and Mizoguchi”.
@RujK – film comment and taste of cinema have these lists- not quite the same thing for all of them: http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2014/10-great-film-directors-who-died-early-in-their-careers/ and https://www.filmcomment.com/article/film-comments-trivial-top-20-expanded-to-40-best-directors-who-died-young/
Bo Hu fits this description though http://thecinemaarchives.com/2020/01/11/an-elephant-sitting-still-2018-bo-hu/
I’ll have to add Humanity and Paper Balloons to my queue- I have not had the chance to catch this one yet
Are there are any directors who you believe stuck too much to one genre, topic, mood, or aesthetic? Perhaps they should have branched out more?
For example, many wish Kalazatov had been able to veer away from Soviet propagandistic messages and stories. Another is Leone. Although the spaghetti western genre served him perfectly, his triumph with Once Upon a Time in America leads me to believe there are other historical periods at which he should have tried his skillful hand.
There are probably better answers to this question than the ones I have given. Does anyone have ideas?
@Graham- my answer is probably Hitchcock- he was always staying in this crime thriller genre (he was doing variations of it with combining elements of romance, comedy and horror). I would really like to see some more straight forward genre films from- imagine how dominant he would be as the best director of all time together with having masterful filmography and wonderful style, he would be a genre master like Kubrick or Hawks- I think that nobody else could even challenge him as the best of all time.
What are your thoughts on William Dieterle? I think he is a style-minus director worthy of being somewhere in top 500.
This is what I have seen of his filmography for now:
The Story of Louis Pasteur- R
The Life of Emile Zola- R
The Hunchback of Notre Dame- R
The Devil and Daniel Webster- HR
Portrait of Jeanne- HR
@RujK
Sounds about right- I didn’t make it all the way to 500 on my list- but there was never a real consideration in the top 250 (or about the 50 names I had kicking around putting those together) and style minus is correct. Below is what I have so far.
1935- A Midnight Summer’s Dream R
1937- The Life of Emile Zola
1939- Juarez R
1939- The Hunchback of Notre Dame
1948- Portrait of Jennie HR
1950- Dark City R
@Drake- on you 1936 page you have The Story of Louis Pasteur as HR level film. What are the reasons for that? I have it as a very solid R with one great Muni performance.
@RujK- Thank you for the help here. It has been 15-20 years since my last viewing so I would have to confirm- but I believe just superior acting and writing
I would switch Tarkovsky and Kubrick, put Scorsese, Truffaut, Renoir, Ford 10-15 spots down. I think Woody Allen is criminally overrated, 0 style all talk in his films. I would switch Rossellini and Visconti. Kieslowski continues to be criminally underrated in most places, he is easily top 10. Bresson should be at least top 20. Chaplin at 80 is way to low although he is overrated in most places, you just went too far. Aronofsky is way too high. Huston and Forman are too low. Resnais and Rohmer should both be at least 100 spots higher.
@maria- Thank you for visiting the site and the comment. However, you are quite wrong here.
2022 is one of the years where you have two directors of the top 250 making and releasing the same film. Zemeckis and Del Toro with Pinocchio.It’s strange though considering Zemeckis is the one with the background in animation that he isn’t the one making the animating one though.
@Harry- Interesting- had not thought about this— honestly both of these films were flying a little under the radar for me.
Have you watched films of Wojciech Has and what do you think about him?
I just watched The Saragossa Manuscript and The Hourglass Sanatorium and like them very much. Compared to the directors on your list I had watched, I think he was similar to and at the same level of Jodorowsky.
@Chiu- Not on my radar at all- thanks for sharing. I don’t see them available on my normal avenues- so will have to keep an eye out.
Im sure you already have it in the works but do you know when you’ll re rank the top 250 now that 10 years have passed?
@Joshua- Not sure when on anything yet on this point. Hit a bit of a slowdown here this summer. But my guess is the updating will come faster this fall. I am not sure I’ll ever go back to individual film reviews/pages- but my project will be to finish the acting updates, then update the top 500 films and make it top 1000 films– and then only after that would updating the director 250 take place. So that feels like it’ll be some time yet.
Do you expect to keep doing year archives for current years moving into the future?
@DeclanG- Yes, I do. I should have the 2022 page in February 2023.
“but my project will be to finish the acting updates“ is that for just the female side or will you update the male side of things after you’re done with the females?
@Matthew- Yes- the plan would be to do them in tandem, or one after the other and sort of the original plan was it would be fun to update them every five years- and that’s just about how it is going to end up I think.
Well that’s awesome to hear. Looking forward to it
Hey Drake, wanted to let you know how much I appreciate this site. I started getting into film pretty heavily close to 3 years (right around when I discovered this site) and I can confidently say that there is no way I would be anywhere near as into it as I am right now without this site. It’s my passion and could be the career path I take. Not only for opening my eyes to the more nuanced and technical side of filmmaking, but also for essentially being my cinema tour guide, haha. Whenever I’m in the mood to watch something I’ll open this website and pick something off of your top 500, or use your director/actor rankings to explore the works of the very best. It’s specifically led me to doing studies of directors/actors that I would have otherwise likely never found. Usually how it works is I’ll pick a film in your top 500, love it and want more of it, then look up your director page for whoever directed that film and use that to guide me through their filmography (and subsequently love the performances of actors in those films, look up their actor page and then explore their other films). This site is super conventional and doing great things for the film community. It’s clear a lot of love, time and passion goes into this website so just wanted to let you know the impact it’s had on me, and I’m sure many others. I hope more and more discover it. I’ve always lurked and observed discussions but never got around to participating. I plan on changing that as there are always some really great discussions going on.
@Matthew agree with everything, this the best film resource/site I have come across.
@Harry – Thank you- feels good to hear this so thanks. I look at some of the earlier pages on the site and I cringe at times- but I have enjoyed working on the site and thank you for the kind words, your comments and for visiting the site.
100%. Such an incredible site. Question – how did you change your profile picture by the way?
@Matthew – this blog runs off WordPress and I believe they take profile pictures from Gravatar which I signed into with on another wordpress site after setting a Gravatar profile picture.
I only have a Gravatar account in the first place because when I signed up for letterboxd years ago it was the only way to get a profile picture on that site.
Thanks. Might give it a shot soon
@Matthew- Wow- how nice of you Matthew- thank you. I certainly appreciate the comment here and you visiting the site. I look forward to see your comments and hear your thoughts in the future.
Sorry for the late(r) response. And no problem, you’ve put an absolutely incredible amount into this website, you should know how helpful the work you’ve put it has been.
Funny hypothetical, Ford makes The Searchers and nothing else. Where does he rank lol?
@Matthew- haha- tough. He’s at least lower than Ridley Scott. I have my eyes on that 115-119 Peter Jackson, James Whale, King Vidor, Carol Reed, Victory Fleming area. That’s a big range- but that’s just eyeballing it here without breaking out all my old metrics and charts.
I figured that Reed would kind of be the floor here and he’s #118. Now, The Searchers isn’t my #1 (that would go to Space Odyssey) but using the guise of Ford having the #1 film ever, I think I would give him the edge over Reed. The Third Man is obviously a mega Masterpiece, but it’s not THE greatest film ever. And I’m not sure 2 HRs and several Rs would make up for that gap. Also, for what it’s worth (and I do think this is worth something) I think The Searchers’ brilliance is due larger in part to Ford than The Third Man is to Reed, if that makes sense.
On the other hand I’m not exactly sure what the ceiling is. Ridley Scott is certainly a hard stop for this hypothetical Ford, like you said. Looking at the grades for the backend of the top 100, I definitely think a strong argument can be made for this Ford to be in that range. But I haven’t gotten into those directors filmography’s yet, so I could be wrong, just eye balling it based off of your grades. Thanks for the response
@Matthew- “I think The Searchers’ brilliance is due larger in part to Ford than The Third Man is to Reed, if that makes sense”- agreed here
I watched two Joseph Losey films today and definitely feel like he should be on this list around the 100-130 range.
The Servant – MP
Mr. Klein – MS
Mr. Klein is so excellent and completely by mood and atmosphere above all else, I do think it could be a masterpiece at 90-100 minutes but as it is it is a very worthy film that carries its mystery throughout and packs many very impressive shots. The overall tone is so haunting. Alain Delon has lost his looks but shows that isn’t all that made him a legendary actor in the first place, he’s great for this icy but deep down terrified character.
The Servant impressed me even more. It’s my favourite creepy London apartment film of the 1960s. Losey pulls off many creative and inspired compositions and everything in the narrative is so well setup formally. Bogarde blew me away too, one of the most talented actors ever to my mind.
Consistent sense of dread, mystery and dark atmosphere between these two so I can see a consistent style.
Would like to see more from him, he has a few more collaborations with Dirk Bogarde I will track down but for now I am very impressed with Losey and this is my case.
@Harry – I have posted about Mr. Klein on the 1970s page and the 1976 page. Very impressive indeed, to me it’s a MP. I just noticed the Servant on this months additions to the Criterion Channel so very excited to get to that. You are absolutely correct on the mood and atmosphere carrying the film. It reminds me Polanski’s The Tenant which interestingly came out the same year, 1976. It is kafkaesque in mood and plot.
It is also another monster performance from Delon who by my count plays the lead in 3 MPs
1. Le Samurai
2. Le Cercle Rouge
3. Mr. Klein
He’s also a main character in 2 other MPs
1. Rocco and His Brothers
2. The Leopard
@James – Good to hear. I do think the Tenant is quite stronger but I feel like Mr. Klein would get better with each viewing too.
Have also started a mini Melville study this week so should be getting to Le Cercle Rouge and rewatching Le Samourai (caught this when I was younger and thought it was very boring but ready to be completely wrong now).
@Harry – I did a full on Melville study, posted all the notes on The Melville page. Look forward to hearing your thoughts
@James – yup already read it, impressed with your writing as always.
@Harry- thanks for sharing- especially how specific you are in the praise of these films. I’ll have to knock The Servant nearer to the front of my list for a revisit.
Excellent list. I’d put Kurosawa right at the top (1, 2, or 3). But other than that the only omission that struck me as odd was Hirokazu Koreeda not making the list at all. He’s one of the best directors working today.
@Logan Thank you for visiting the site and for the comment here. Many cinephiles and critics would agree with you on Hirokazu Koreeda. I’ve missed things and been wrong before- so it certainly could be happening here- but I have not found the evidence in his films to support putting Hirokazu Koreeda on this list.
I was wondering how often you update your top 250 directors list? And if you make changes will the original list still be available?
@Matt – so this is a few years old- August of 2020. I have a few other projects I want to get to first before updating the directors list and pages. In the past I have not kept the original list up after I make the updates.
Gotcha, I look forward to the next update. It would be cool if you archived past iterations of you list so people can see how it’s changes through the years.
@Matt- It is a good idea- but part of me doesn’t really want to showcase how wrong I was in the past- haha. Once it is fixed, I’d rather just focus on the updated list.
I get that. Lol. It might just be me, but I kind of use this site as a road map to exploring the directors that I haven’t gotten to. So I really appreciate all the hard work you’ve put into this. I also think the other parts of this website are brilliant as well. It’s awesome to have a reference like this to help access areas of cinema that I’m unfamiliar with.
@Matt- My pleasure- really appreciate you coming to the site, commenting, and the kind words here. Thank you.
@Matt@Drake
When I first started grading films and documenting it on a spreadsheet (about 3 1/2 years ago) I posted a
column for grades by viewing # with a grade for each time I watched before just deciding to post my most updated score instead. I think there is a potential benefit in documenting grades by viewing but it starts to get a little overwhelming. What I have noticed however, is that generally speaking most films improve or stay the same with each additional viewing. If I had to guess I would say only like 1 of every 15 or of every 20 movies goes down, just my experience so far.
To the people, what does a list of the best cinematographers look like?
Vittio Storaro
Emanuel Lubezki
Giuseppe Rotunno
Gordon Willis
Christopher Doyle
Nicolas Roeg
Asakazu Nakai
Sergei Urusevsky
Sven Nykvist
Roger Deakins
Robert Richardson
Larry Smith
WIth some of those names, I’m not sure how much credit they deserve, they might just be in the right place at the right time – but regardless they do have an incredible catalog. Certainly the best went on to do great work with multiple directors which is clear proof of their prowess.
Any names to add / remove?
@Harry- Great list. I’d add Gregg Toland. Michael Ballhaus, Conrad Hall, Raoul Coutard, Vilmos Zsigmond, Freddie Young-
Taste of Cinema has their list as well. http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2015/the-30-greatest-cinematographers/ – can’t argue with many of these
I’ve started tracking the best cinematography, writing, editing, and music scoring of each year which has been enlightening in seeing which names keep coming up. You’ve got a solid list there already but I feel that you have to add Emmanuel Lubezki to that list, and maybe Hoyte van Hoytema if we’re talking about more modern cinematographers. Kieslowski’s DOP Slawomir Idziak deserves a shoutout too, and the recent retrospective of James Wong Howe films on the criterion channel has really made me realise how distinctive of a style he has with his deep focus cinematography (Sweet Smell of Success, Seconds, Hud, Yankee Doodle Dandy). I may start publishing a list like yours once I’ve covered a broad enough range.
Now that Akerman has the #1 film on the Sight & Sound list, would love to see her represented in your top-250 directors. Maybe a re-evaluation of Jeanne Dielman too? She’s a top-100 director by my methodology, and the 2nd highest ranked director who is unranked on your list.
@Kyle B- Thank you for the comment. Always looking to see if there is something I’ve missed- Akerman and Jeanne Dielman included. Perhaps an Akerman study in 2023 is a good idea.
@Drake – did you watch Jeanne Dielman before getting to the recent-ish 1975 page? Or did you watch it before and find it not archivable yet
@Harry Oh, I saw it 10 or 12 years ago. Have you had a chance to see it? My decision not to archive it has as much to do with the category it belongs in as anything else – perhaps “experimental”. It certainly is not a documentary film- but if you’ve seen it I mean it uses duration as a tool as much or more than any film (at least that I’ve seen I’ve seen- and I have not seen any of the Andy Warhol experiments where he just shoots at static for hours on end). Anyways, I’m up for revisiting it- and if if the film warrants it- reevaluating- but needless to say I did not find much to praise – artistically – when I caught it the first time.
Drake,
How is Seijun Sezucki study going?
@James Trapp- Fun study- I was able to catch seven of his films from late August to late September and added all seven the the archives. Certainly seven films is not exhaustive- always on the lookout for more.
@Drake – that’s great, would you put any of them HR or higher?
@James Trapp- sorry- must have missed this- yes, three films: Gate of Flesh, Tokyo Drifter, and Branded to Kill
@Drake – no worries, I just looked over my grades and can’t believe I saw most of them in 2019, time flies! But I’ve seen his two best multiple times, roughly I have:
Branded to Kill – MP
Tokyo Drifter – MS
Youth of the Beast – HR
Take Aim at the Police Van – HR
Gate of Flesh – R/HR
Fighting Elegy – R
Everything Goes Wrong – R
@James Trapp- Great work here- and yes, time flies indeed. How are you doing on your 2022 viewing? Anything outside of the usual suspects I should be seeking out to see that caught your eye so far this year?
I think I need some time to absorb the shock wave, but I just watched Barbarian (2022) from Zach Cregger last night. Someone on this site, I think Matthew, mentioned it so I decided to check it out and it is wild. I think I will need a 2nd viewing to better gage the quality of the filmmaking, will probably do that tonight since I only rented it from Amazon, but I was blown away by the suspense and story. Speak no Evil from Danish director and screenwriter Christian Tafdrup is a Danish 2022 film I watched a couple months ago that is worth checking out. Park Chan Wook Decision to Leave is finally on MUBI and I’ve watched twice in last couple weeks, its phenomenal. Other than that I have not seen a ton from 2022 aside from the obvious ones like Blonde. Been mainly going through the director studies. After Hawks I’m going to do a (mini) study for Robert Siodmak focusing on his American Noirs then Speilberg and after that not sure.
@James Trapp- Good stuff here- I just wasn’t sure how much you mixed in the new stuff with your director studies. Thanks for sharing.
@James – when are you getting on letterboxd?
1/ Stanley Kubrick
2/ Martin Scorsese
3/ Alfred Hitchcock
4/ John Ford
5/ Akira Kurosawa
6/ Federico Fellini
7/ Andrei Tarkovsky
8/ Francis Ford Coppola
9/ Orson Welles
10/ Ingmar Bergman
My top 10 of the greatest directors ever
@KidCharlemagne- Hard to argue with this- great list
@KidCharlemagne – very similar to mine
# 1 Stanley Kubrick
# 2 Alfred Hitchcock
# 3 Martin Scorsese – My personal favorite, I think Scorsese may overtake the #2 spot
# 4 Akira Kurosawa
# 5 Orson Welles
# 6 Francis Ford Copolla – only Scorsese can match his top 3
# 7 Terence Malick – Badlands is merely his 5th best film
# 8 Francois Truffaut – probably not here without the glorious Antoine Doinel series
# 9 Andrei Tarkovsky
# 10 PT Anderson (recent rewatches of The Master have put him into top 10)
I need to do a more in depth viewing for Fellini and Bergman but I am fairly comfortable with this for now
I’m not nearly as much of a film buff like some of you guys, but here’s my top 10 anyway, probably very subjective.
1. Martin Scorsese
2. Wong Kar-Wai
3. Alejandro González Iñárritu
4. Christopher Nolan
5. Peter Jackson
6. Akira Kurosawa
7. Quentin Tarantino
8. Francis Ford Coppola
9. Park Chan-Wook
10. Bong Joon-ho
Honorable mentions to: Sofia Coppola, Ang Lee, Hayao Miyazaki, Michael Mann, Brian De Palma,
Denis Villeneuve, James Cameron.
How could I forget David Fincher, he would def take room in the top 10. This is what happens when you create a list after 5-10 min of thinking
@Oliver- Thank you for sharing this- impressive list- and happy to see Fincher make it- he too often gets overlooked
@Oliver – I love that you have Park Chan-Wook and Bong Joon-ho. South Korean cinema has become a powerhouse in the 21st century. Given that you have Park Chan-Wook, Bong Joon-ho, WKW, Tarantino, Michael Mann and a mention for De Palma I am curious as to whether or not you have seen any films from the following:
Seijun Sezucki
Jean Pierre Melville
John Woo
If you have not checked these directors out yet, I think you would love their work
Hiya James, I havn’t heard of the first two, Sezucki and Melville, will definitely check them out!
I saw Face/Off not too long ago, and besides of Cage doing his antics I actually liked it a lot, lots of cool action scenes and good pacing.
I’ve also seen his western cut of Red Cliff which was ultimately ok, a bit of a disappointment since I love that era and I regard The Three Kingdoms (2010) tv series very highly.
But I know these aren’t the works he is known for, it’s his action flicks from the early 90s and I will see them one day, they’re just a bit hard to find.
It was funny seeing John Woo mentioned as the best current film director in Olivier Assanyas Irma Vep.
@Oliver – check the link below for John Woo’s best work, particularly The Killer (1989) and A Better Tomorrow (1986). I need to see Faceoff again but I think The Killer (1989) is a masterpiece with its relentless pace, and amazingly choreographed shootouts. It’s got style in spades,and is one of the great cops vs criminal films in my opinion. Its not clear good guys and bad guys here, but shades of gray to use a cliche.
Some people think Woo goes a little overboard at times, especially the assassins using the double guns and there is undoubtedly some unintensional comedy here and there, Woo similar to De Palma and Tarantino doesn’t do subtle. I for one love over the top for certain films.
https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2022/11/the-essential-films-of-john-woo/
As for Melville and and Sezucki:
Criterion Channel currently has 7 Sezucki films and for the most part they are glorious. Melville is probably one of the most influential on many of the auteurs on your top 10 and the honorable mentions. John Woo loves Melville and even wrote the essay for the Criterion blu ray of Le Samouraï (1967)
Nice, right now I’ve got
#1. Stanley Kubrick
#2. Martin Scorsese
#3. Akira Kurosawa
#4. Paul Thomas Anderson
#5. Francis Ford Coppola
#6. Andrei Tarkovsky
#7. Sergio Leone
#8. Terrance Malick
#9. David Lean
#10. Werner Herzog
HM: Hitchcock, Tarantino, Bertolucci, Roeg,Lynch, Kar Wai, Kalatozov
@Harry – great list I have 7 of the same in my top 10, just curious for Herzog, do you include his documentaries?
@James – I don’t include them but they wouldn’t impact his place here at all if I didn’t count them (I’ve seen My Best Fiend (good), Grizzly Man (disliked) and Lessons of Darkness which I thought was also decent.) It’s the Kinski films and Heart of Glass that lets him slip in.
Are there any Kiyoshi Kurosawa films in the archive? I recently watched Cure (1997) and Pulse (2001) and was really impressed, particularly by the former.
He makes pretty good atmospheric, horror films.
Also what do you think of Sion Sono, I have not watched any of his films but planning to do so, any recommendations?
@Alt Mash- Thank you for the comment- There are not – on Kiyoshi Kurosawa question here – at least currently. I’ve seen both above but would love to revisit. I want to see Wife of a Spy, too.
1. Antonioni
2. Fellini
3. Kieslowski
4. Godard
5. Malle
6. Bergman
7. Pasolini
8. Kubrick
9. Bunuel
10. Visconti
15 year old cinephile
@Theo Thank you for visiting the site and the comment. This is an impressive collection. 15 as in you’ve been a cinephile for 15 years? Or 15 as in you are 15 years old? When I was 15 I had not seen a single film by these filmmakers (and if I did, it was by accident).
Thank you so much! To answer your question I am currently 15 years of age. (10th grade) For about two years I have looked at your lists for inspiration, often watching films that you HR-MP. Really appreciate your hard work and dedication meant to this amazing page. Though just one major question… Just wondering, why are Pasolini, Malle, Rohmer, and Wazjda ranked so low on your list?
@Theo- well congratulations to you for getting into cinema seriously at such a young age! I am happy to hear you’ve enjoyed visiting these pages here. Hmmm- so for the four auteurs in question I’ll take them on a case by case basis. Before I do though, I will say that my goal is to constantly be improving the site and pages with future updates. I finished my top 250 rankings almost 3 years ago now and I can see all sorts of problems with it. My next update should remedy most of the problems I hope. Ok- so for Pasolini, I was able to do a study of his work (12 films from 2020-2022) so we should see him shoot up this list with the next update. For Malle, I guess I’d ask “ranked so low” compared to what? If you visit the They Shoot Pictures Don’t They consensus list- https://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top250directors.htm Malle is at #162 and I have him at #125. So I actually think more highly of him than the consensus. For Rohmer and Wajda, certainly the consensus has them ranked higher than I do. There is no real reason here, I have seen 3 Rohmer films in the last 6 years (not a high number) and 0 Wajda films during that stretch- so another study of both is probably overdue. I take it you think they should be closer to the top?
@Theo- well congratulations to you for getting into cinema seriously at such a young age! I am happy to hear you’ve enjoyed visiting these pages here. Hmmm- so for the four auteurs in question I’ll take them on a case by case basis. Before I do though, I will say that my goal is to constantly be improving the site and pages with future updates. I finished my top 250 rankings almost 3 years ago now and I can see all sorts of problems with it. My next update should remedy most of the problems I hope. Ok- so for Pasolini, I was able to do a study of his work (12 films from 2020-2022) so we should see him shoot up this list with the next update. For Malle, I guess I’d ask “ranked so low” compared to what? If you visit the They Shoot Pictures Don’t They consensus list- https://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top250directors.htm Malle is at #162 and I have him at #125. So I actually think more highly of him than the consensus. For Rohmer and Wajda, certainly the consensus has them ranked higher than I do. There is no real reason here, I have seen 3 Rohmer films in the last 6 years (not a high number) and 0 Wajda films during that stretch- so another study of both is probably overdue. I take it you think they should be closer to the top?
Nearing end of Coen Brothers Study and one of the things that really jumped out at me was how amazing their casts are for almost every single one of their films other than A Serious Man (2009) and I think that one was by design.
Got me curious though which auteur has the best, or your favorite, regular casts? And I’m talking about ensemble casts so someone who may have had some great pairings like Hitchcock with James Steward or Cary Grant wouldn’t qualify. For me a few come to mind In no particular order:
Coen Brothers
PT Anderson
Quentin Tarantino
Wes Anderson
Martin Scorsese
@James Trapp- You’ll like this read http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2017/10-great-movie-directors-who-always-use-the-same-cast/
@Drake – thanks, great list. I like that they have Coen Brothers at # 1. Surprised that PT Anderson is not on the list
Starting Seijun Suzuki Study – I watched 7 of his films in 2019 and graded them but did not actually go through and take notes back then. Going to rewatch those 7 plus 3 additional ones
@James – haven’t seen any of his films yet but I love this quote “I make movies that make no sense and make no money.”
@Harry – If you like the work of any of these directors there is a good chance you will like his work:
Quentin Tarantino
Micheal Mann
Park Chan Wook
Jean Pierre Melville
John Woo
Shōhei Imamura
How high do you think Walt Disney would be on the list if he directed all Disney’s animated work released while he was alive (top 150?) ?
@RujK- Interesting question – I think that’s a fair approximation. I’d have to rework all the numbers and spend some time running out the projection.
With an MS/MP in Pinocchio, a good number of HRs to back him up, and a fair few Rs, I would estimate possibly even around the #100 mark where Miyazaki is sitting. I think their resumes more or less line up in that way, though obviously its not the only criteria.
Starting Director Study for Seijun Suzuki. Will post to this page since he does not have his own page
Take Aim at the Police Van (1960)
Notes:
Starts with shot of man holding gun then switch to POV shot through sniper rifle before transitioning to opening credits
2:45 to 1 aspect ratio
4:50 repetition used as foreshadowing
5:15 sniper POV shot
6 min story moves to next day after a brilliant opening showing a coordinated taking down of a Police Van emptying out prisoners, this results in Van’s prison guard Daijirô Tamon, getting suspended for 6 months
10:20 close up on gangster then set about 20 feet back with the same gangster in background
12:12 internal dialogue from Tamon, the films protagonist
12:47 camera panning along photos of the girls at the “modeling agency” aka brothel
13:45 great overhead shot of surrounding mounts and the city which is located along the water
15:08 nice frame within frame
20:02 great framing using 2 windows
22:20 self-referential “I prefer mysteries set in Japan”
23:10 camera set near ground level at pool
26:50 sniper POV shot
27:26 great composition and use of lighting in the underpass
28:25 shaky camera from vehicle POV
29:13 narration with flashbacks of the crime
32:20 camera panning rapidly creating a disoriented sensation
38 min shot reserve shot
40 min camera goes to low angle shot
41:01 overhead shot
42:19 flashback used for explaining narrative
43:20 eerie score during driving scene
45:21 great blocking and use of framing
53:43 nice framing with 2 different depths of field
54:55 great composition with lonely Yuko on far-right side of frame and the rest of frame empty and at 55:05 when injured Tamon returns home camera moves in on relieved Yuko
56:02 back and forth close ups on faces one at time
56:16 great close up on both faces in the same frame, great blocking here
57:24 multiple depths of field
58:48 camera panning up on window showing waiting gunman
1:03:18 landscape shot with mountains in background
1:03:30 great camera movement with pan across the room
1:06:24 great low angle shot of 3 men forming triangle watching the Van with Tamon and woman inside moving toward what seems like a sure death
1:08:00 suspense mounts with the score
1:10:02 great location for climax of film, very Western vibe out near the mountains in isolated area
1:11:53great camera zoom back from gangsters playing cards inside bar
1:12:50 train takes up half the frame, as characters now at final setting
1:14:23 another close up on same dark sunglasses
1:16:14 camera pan as police sirens ring out
1:17:03 dramatic close ups on faces
1:17:45 rapid edits used to dial up the suspense
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki explores Japan’s underworlds in his films similar to Shōhei Imamura, there are some elements of Noir with the character Yoko serving as a sort of Femme Fatale and some of the visuals including shadows, dim lighting, and nighttime setting
The pacing is perfect for this type of story which is for the most part in constant motion with one man, Tamon, investigating the shooting incident as he travels through the streets dealing with various criminals. The films narrative set up works great as Tamon is suspended for 6 months for Van being hijacked so when he sets out to investigate what happened he doesn’t have anyone to report to so he has the freedom of a private investigator
There are many shots with the camera positioned low and some impressive framing with frame in frames and use of windows, doors, and even trucks
Close up shots and slow zoom outs are used to great effect as we the viewer have limited perspective as to who is present in many locations giving off vibe of danger throughout the film
There are a few scenes that foreshadow upcoming events, none better than the opening 6 minutes which is masterful in a sort of montage of people involved both inside and outside of the Police Van
The final set piece at the train is probably the best 5 min stretch of the film along with the opening 5 min
Verdict: HR
Great review as always. Love Seijun Suzuki films, can’t wait for your review of Branded to Kill.
@Alt Mash – thank you much appreciated, how many Suzuki films have you seen? I am trying to watch as many as I can find
A friend of mine is a big Suzuki fan he introduced me to his films.
Unfortunately I have only seen four of his films l, which are pretty popular –
Youth of the Beast
Tokyo Drifters
Branded to Kill
Zigeunerweisen
I have not seen much of his earlier films, but they get more and more surreal. Branded to Kill is my favourite.
Anyways I love your reviews and regularly check them out, looking forward for more.
This comment was for James.
@Alt Mash – thanks again, l got 12 films planned including the one I just posted about, I have seen 8 of the 12 previously and think extremely highly of Branded to Kill and Tokyo Drifter in particular
So seven years ago (I was 14 then ) I was on a streak of watching controversial pulpy horror movies. Most of those films were either found-footage Or pure B-grade pulpy stuff. But two of the most artistically superior films I saw were The Devils by Ken Russell and Possession by Andrzej Zulawski. I liked The Devils more because it was available in a better quality but your recent thoughts on Possession made me check out if I missed something as it was anything but a masterpiece until then. I seeked some modern trailers and the quality in them is something that just wasn’t there in the version I saw 7 years ago back in 2016. It’s much better. I saw Possession again and this time I got everything. I have more knowledge of cinema now. At that time I was all about Adjani’s performance, atmosphere, the ambiguity, strangeness etc. It was all there in my recent viewing as well but the the three new MAJOR additions are here,
1. The camera movement- Zulawski’s camera floats, flies. It’s evident and certainly impacts as much as the steadicam shot of Jack Nicholson approaching Shelley Duvall (with a bat in her hand) in The Shining.
2. The color palette- the greys, dull blues, purples
3. The overall theme- it’s a movie about Zulawski’s own divorce. It’s not an outer observation of what couples go through…the crying, argument, heart break, etc etc (Marriage Story/ Scenes from a marriage) . It’s an inner exploration of what couple feel…. The craziness, the hysteria, the horror. The wife is having sex with a monster (literally). The hurt in the movie is the physical manifestation of immense heartache. How much would it hurt if you put your hand in a chopper… Well it hurts that much. That’s the image Zulawski’s trying to create. Just compare the fight scenes here with those of Marriage Story, Blue Valentine, Marriage Story etc.
It’s a sure set Masterpiece
So now let me get to the point I cought up another Zulawski film. It was recommended to me personally by George (a fellow cinephile and admirer of this side my good friend).
That Most Important Thing: Love
Well all I can say is that it’s by the same director who directed Possession… First frame to last. This was a clear revelation for me. An astounding piece of filmmaking
The same camera movements (stylistic supernova- it’s Zulawski being an auteur) as Possession but not as many open spaces and streets as Possession. Impeccable production design better than possession.
Romy Schneider is the lead here. Almodovar dedicates Women on the verge of a nervous breakdown to her performance in this movie and it shows.
It’s a “TOUR DE FORCE”. Just like Adjani’s work in Possession her performance belongs in the same universe as possession. Just like how specific WKW Or Antonioni film performances are. She’s without doubt the best 1975 has to offer as far as female acting performances go. She’s more mature than Adjani. I don’t know where you might have seen her. She’s in The Trial by Orson Welles and really great in it.
That Most Important Thing: Love is a HR/MS for me. On my first viewing.
I suggest you stop what you’re doing and seek it out. It’s a great companion piece to Possession and establishes Zulawski as master of camera movement.
@M*A*S*H- Great work here. That Most Important Thing: Love is on Criterion streaming until the end of February
Will you get to it?
@M*A*S*H – I saw it a few days ago actually. I may try to get to it again. I have it graded out lower than you. I agree with much of you have to say here about her performance and the camera movement. I’m not with the “Impeccable production design better than possession” comment. But I miss things – or have in the past for sure.
@Drake- Okay so what did you make of it? Is it in the archives? If yes, then what grade did you assign it?
@M*A*S*H- Oh yes, in the archives. I thought highly of it and like I said, agree with most of what you said. That production design comment compared to Possession stuck out. But I have it as a R/HR or maybe HR with a little more time to sink it. I do love the connective tissue between the two films.
@M*A*S*H – what do you make of Klaus Kinski’s performance? Haha. He’s playing himself – a complete madman, an actor. I couldn’t take my eyes off him.
@Drake – I prefer Kinski’s late period performances:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmUpGKGDH90&ab_channel=rusamene
@Harry- haha- amazing. I had not seen this. Thanks for sending
I liked him.
He knows 5 languages. Has worked in all of them.
@M*A*S*H- Me too, he is hypnotic
I knew u would ultimately get to it change ur thoughts abt Possession.
@M*A*S*H, How have u been mate?
Hey @Ric,
Please contact me personally.
Everything Goes Wrong (1960)
Notes:
Starts with war footage with boxier aspect ratio that changes to wider aspect ratio about 2 min in
2:16 changes to main story with low angle shot with teenage protagonist, Jiro, isolated in frame
3:27 camera movements and Jazz score capture vibrant youth in streets
6:29 rapid zoom from surveillance angle
8:15 camera panning along stage with band performing
13 min Jiro in foreground with mother in background during argument over mother’s new boyfriends as husband was killed during WW2
15:18 Jiro isolated in frame upon leaving house
21:28 camera panning 360 at close distance
22:18 low angle shot with great blocking as teens/young adults hanging around
25:45 Jiro standing behind fence taking up most of frame as kids walking by on right side of frame
26:08 distorted images at a sort of funhouse as Jiro goes on rides alone
30 min Coleman Hawkins poster
32:40 Jiro POV driving car
39:25 slow zoom out with camera set low
40-45 min family drama escalates with each of 4 characters isolated in frame 1 at a time throughout much of the scene, tense throughout
46:41 camera panning along shoreline
54:04 panning through street as Jiro drives off
55:28 Jiro’s mother and boyfriend in background of frame with teens in foreground leading chant
55:50 close up and camera pan inside youth club where an earlier scene was shot
57:50 series of jump cuts
1:00:20 boyfriend of mother standing in background trying to have a serious conversation with Jiro who resists all attempts at civility while kissing girlfriend
1:03:00 anger brewing throughout film turns violent
1:04:10 framing though vehicle windshield
1:04:44 slow pan across to otherwise empty house until Jiro’s mother sitting in corner
1:08:28 after accident immediate transition to bar room
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki going with Jazz score as was popular during this time period in Japan, its fitting for a story about post war youth
This is one of 8 Suzuki films on Criterion Channel right now along with the following; Take Aim at the Police Van, Youth of the Beast, Gate of Flesh, Story of a Prostitute, Fighting Elegy, Tokyo Drifter, and Branded to Kill
This film can be viewed as a sort of tragedy with Jiro’s immaturity dooming everyone in his life who is trying to help him
Some great camera work throughout film capturing the youth of this film in a post war society
Verdict: R/HR
Detective Bureau 2-3: Go to Hell Bastards! (1963)
Notes:
First film in Color for this study, wide aspect ratio again
1:30 trucks full of gangsters get into crazy shootout in middle of a road including a Pepsi Truck (love the shameless product placement)
4:26 Joe Shishido makes first appearance playing in poker in cardroom
7:37 nice close up on faces each on opposite sides of the frame with middle of frame out of focus
10 min wide shot of the city
Shishido as Tajima, a detective investigating Yakuza criminal activity
16:58 great frame in frame in frame shot using car window and police station front door as Manabe exits building
17:39 transition to a black and white TV taking up most of frame where the same events are playing out as potential shoot out is inevitable and starts up shortly after; woman watching black and white TV like she is watching a cops and robbers TV show for entertainment
24:54 watching events play out on the black and white TV again
25:28 great use of red lighting creating highly sexualized image
26:52 Tajima captured in same red lighting
28:07 yellow lighting in the foreground with red lighting in background of shot inside apartment
29:20 gray/blue color palette
30:36 over the hip shot
31:56 frame using overhead shot from trap door located above Tajima
34:34 double close up
36:50 close ups back and forth between Tajima playing an undercover detective and the mob boss, without both in same frame
38:12 saturated green car
41 min church used as part of elaborate backstory for Tajima to convince mob boss he is not police
41:55 meeting in church confessional with Tajima in background of frame behind bars
43:43 what would be gangster film without beautiful dancers, red and blue clothing of dancers contrasts with gray and black in the rest of the frame
45:52 Tajima spontaneously gets up and starts singing along with performers in nightclub
47:15 wide shot of club during end of performance
51:13 overhead shot of club
53:24 close up on love interest of Tajima
53:53 great frame of heads in foreground
56:01 curtain blocks part of frame, wide
1:04:56 red lighting returns when Manabe returns to apartment from earlier
1:06:06 maybe best composition in film with double profile shot at different depths of field with half the frame using red lighting
1:07:04 night club shot with heavy use of silver in mise en scene and Christmas decorations
1:07:55 performer singer looking into camera
1:15:45 broken mirror creating multiple reflections as she details her despair
1:18:50 high angle shot through ceiling door
1:21:26 smoke filled frame enhances claustrophobic atmosphere as fire spreading through basement
1:23:01 free for all battle similar to opening scene only on a much larger level
1:25:30 newspaper headlines as narrative
1:28:03 ends with shot overlooking city
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki with another Yakuza classic, this was my first time watching this one; I found Blu Ray from Arrow Video with great quality, one of his films in color
88 min run time is ideal for this film with the narrative blasting along with a tone that is lighter than many other Yakuza films I have seen, this one is a lot of fun start to finish. There is a terrific scene about halfway through the film where the Joe Shishido character goes the lead performer at a night club in song and dance, he is incredibly charismatic and can pull off scenes like few others
The shootouts are ridiculously over the top, especially the ones that bookend the film, hilariously the opening scene involves a team of Yakuza opening fire from a Pepsi Truck, Suzuki must have had fun with this film and all its absurdities
Expressionistic use of color, especially red lighting used in a couple of scenes involving a sexualized environment, also during the club scene the lead singer is wearing a bright red outfit
I’ve noticed Suzuki likes to use these close ups and profile shots then quickly zoom out, in many of the action scenes the viewer has limited information about how much danger the character is in, creates tension effectively
Verdict: HR
Youth of the Beast (1963)
Notes:
Starts with shot of street in black and white but with green lettering for introduction credits set to a jazz score and 2.35 to 1 aspect ratio
2:33 shot of table with scattered items including a red flower in an otherwise black and white shot
3 min switch to color with Jazz score
2:52 switch to color as film maintains the jazz score
3:47 profile shot of Joe Shishido, playing Jo, smoking a cigarette and wearing fedora, actually looking quite a bit like Belmondo in Breathless (1960) in the scene outside of the movie theatre when he’s looking at the Bogart poster
6:48 low angle shot through glass floor above
7:38 topless dancer waving pink feathers moves to background of composition with Club Owner threatening Jo for not paying his tab at Nightclub moving into foreground
8:44 “however much they’re paying you I’ll double it” I love the dialogue in these kinds of films
9:02 Shishido as “Jo” and Boss isolated in the same frame for first time
10:13 higher level boss holding a cat and knife
10:48 Jo gets acquainted with a gangster named Minami who seems to admire his skillset
14:33 handheld camera in street
16 min camera positions changing rapidly as alternates on who has upper hand
17:50 great use of dissolve as addict chases the fading image out of the door
24:17 “kill the boss’s 6th mistress” hilarious
27:53 great composition of the three characters
29 min low angle shot with protagonist elevated in background
32:28 Jo in foreground and Minami in background, fitting with Minami hero worship of Jo growing
35:06 great pan across identical looking frames
39:18 beautiful painterly like shot with yellow air in background
44:04 noir-esque night shot in rain
50:35 long shot makes use of wide aspect ratio
52:28 shot of cars riding side by side using both windows as framing
54:49 creative frame using highway underpass
57:07 3 depths of field
1:07:05 mini planes used to frame Jo
1:11:45 two shot connects Jo and wife of man murdered by mob
1:14:17 another shot using window
1:16:57 camera which was POV from Jo pulls back to reveal Jo with several guns on him he didn’t see coming leading to revelation that the Boss is aware of Jo’s intentions to sabotage both gangs
1:23:17 cross cutting revealing narrative twist
1:23:53 another window shot
1:25:10 cutaway shot to hallway
1:25:58 close up on Jo’s face upon discovering betrayal
1:30:55 pan to video recording
1:31:37 color fades to black and white with exception of red flower and green lettering just like opening scene
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki with another Yakuza Film, his specialty, the plot is intentionally generic a
Suzuki’s films are often hilarious not only in absurdity but just the comical delivery of the lines like after Shishido’s character kills or severely injures several of his guys the Mob Boss with his back turned to Shishido casually says “however much they’re paying you I’ll double it”. These are movies characters with movie character dialogue and its so much fun to watch
Elements of buddy film although a little usual as its kind of one sided with Minami’s hero worship of Jo, although to be fair Shishido’s Joe is awesome
Suzuki alters perspectives in an impressive manner, the viewer rarely has all the visual information making violence and potential double crosses present throughout the film
I love the bookend use of black and white with green lettering in credits and color in flowers
Verdict: HR
Gate of Flesh (1964)
Notes:
Starts with beautiful but haunting montage of images with red lettering and faded colors during opening credits
2:20 tracking shot of woman moving through the streets at night during a police raid of a brothel
3:50 Joe Shishido character whistling and walking through the streets
6:12 great camera panning through daytime crowd near brothel
7 min red dress standouts with few primary colors
8:35 close up on injured Japanese woman lying in field with the cross of a priest standing over her with the cross in focus
10:52 interiors of broken-down building used as brothel
13:24 transition to bright day time street and shot of working girls lined up along the fence
16:10 quick zoom in on working girl tied to a boat for working outside her territory
17:25 camera set near waist level with unfaced John getting dressed in foreground and working girl in background in darkened room
19:45 cutaway shot to American Flag
20:34 great composition of two working girls in foreground and American soldier in between the two but in the background as they argue over “turf”
22:36 overhead shot of injured soldier carried through a crowd
24:20 internal dialogue
25:40 great blocking with woman in red dress and ghostlike image of Shishido character as drumbeat continues
27:30 slow zoom out as camera glides through house at night
33:01 Shishido’s character is shown again as ghostlike figure on far-right side of frame
34 min great montage with each of working girls shown in isolation for a few seconds with saturated color in background; red, yellow, blue/green, and purple
37:40 new working girl wearing black shows up for the first time
38:11 brief ghostlike image of Shishido character again
39:54 blocking with all 5 working girls in background and Shishido in foreground with back turned to the camera
42:20 series of dissolve edits during torture/whipping scene as working girls take out their anger and jealousy on the newest girl after Shishido’s character shows an interest in her
44:52 close up on face of girl being tortured
45:25 great 360 camera movement on working girls sitting in middle of frame
51:21 shot with girl in green standing with back to outside of the house
54:42 ghostlike image of Shishido character on right side of frame and girl and John is falling for her on left side of frame
57:34 close up on girl in green’s face displaying anger before camera transitions back with abandoned houses in background that may or may not be a dream
59:50 painterly background with girl in green standing in isolation and then transition to shot of empty village in morning with muted colors
1:07:37 Shishido places Japanese flag over his face, yet another War reference along with the frequent presence of American soldiers
1:09:32 extreme close up on girl in green
1:11:16 one of film’s rare long shots
1:13:20 close up on razor
1:13:40 overhead shot of girl in red storming out of house
1:15:06 close up on girl in green’s head with face looking up toward ceiling
1:16:24 extreme close up on girl in green’s eyes followed by the attacking Shishido’s character
1:21:24 shot with most of face covered by dark
1:24:11 green lighting fillings up entire frame other than girl hanging from rope in the middle of the frame
1:25:05 similar to prior shot with green frame only overhead shot
1:28:10 eerily quiet, profile shot of girl in green
1:29:40 underpass used as frame of tragedy followed by working girls walking streets
Like opening credits red lettering and faded colors
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki with an impressive social drama, I had seen this once before about 4 years ago but did remember it being so strong visually, I probably would have given this a R at the time but with this rewatch my opinion of it was improved dramatically (see grade below)
This is like a horror version of Italian neorealism, it’s a brilliant character study only instead of one character it is set on a group of 4 or 5 working girls but they live by a set of rules and brutally punish any dissenters and where as other films about working girls might view them strictly as victims of society but that is not the case here; some might critique that but I actually think its progressive as its allows female characters to have a full range of humanity, the good and the bad
Great use of lighting, much of film set at night and interesting use of bright colors and primary colors mainly in the clothing worn by the working girls and later in film use of green lighting almost haze like
There is great camera movements throughout the film, especially in the interiors of the torn down house they live in, some tracking shots through the town are used effectively as the films setting is one of its strengths; Suzuki creates a distinct world
Shishito appears as ghostlike image in several scenes, usually when he’s not physically present almost as if he has created a break in the girl’s routine
The score is appropriately different from other films in study so far as the Jazz score would not work here given the bleak tone and atmosphere
Verdict: MS
Story of a Prostitute (1965)
Notes:
Starts with shots of hills followed by zoom in with narration
Film is set during The Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945)
2:50 apparition like image on right side of frame
6:12 overhead shot of dead soldier
7:55 longshot with sky taking up over half the frame in background
8:13 Tarkovsky style camera turning 90 degrees into a doorway frame
13 min brutal violence
15:05 cutaway shot to valley
18:36 sitting military man leans out of darkness
20:10 shot of female from neck up while giving internal dialogue
22:23 slow motion shot used for the 1st time
25:12 metal frame of bed shot to look like prison bars
32 min rainfall fitting with the bleak atmosphere
35 min camera positioned low with subject in background, frequent shot throughout study
38:50 dreamlike images with heavy white coloring
42:56 overhead shot of brutal images, skeletons
44:08 frame using hole in wall with enemy soldiers attacking in background near center of frame
47:07 four women captured in frame, nice use of blocking
54 min dream like images of young couple lying in field at night
58:40 village under attack with heavy gunfire and explosives
1:00:45 excellent tracking shot during heavy gunfire as young woman runs without fear to find her man
1:08:30 cave like setting with religious imagery in background
1:11:02 longshot used to convey isolation as couple left behind
1:11:42 Antonioni like use of body positions to convey loneliness even in the presence of other people
1:12:52 rare use of dissolve edit
1:15:20 cutaway shot to long shot of valley
1:19:35 profile shot from multiple angles
1:22:00 prison cell prior to planned court martial
1:27:37 camera pan prior to court martial
1:32:00 series of freeze frames of Mikami and Harumi in courtyard prior to death
1:35:10 great low angle shot of soldiers marching on elevated area
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki returns to black and white, fitting as this film is bleak and unlike previous films in study there is little in way of a score, Obvious connections with Gate of Flesh, similar subject and focus on working girls but without the humor and occasional lighter moments. The film is more realism than standard melodrama although there is one relationship in particular that becomes the films focus. Still the focus is more on this village during wartime in the Japanese post in Manchuria and relationship between soldiers and women
There are some strong compositions throughout the film, particularly during enemy attacks on the village, in particular the scene starting around the 56 min mark of the film
Verdict: R
Tokyo Drifter (1966)
Notes:
Starts with black and white grainy image of Tetsu walking along train track
1:28 symmetrical frame with Tetsu on left side of frame and his contact on right of train
1:56 line of five men walking with Tetsu in the middle wearing white shirt and others black
2:31 extreme close up on sunglasses then cut to color images of Tetsu shooting a gun
3:30 montage of abandoned loading docks
4:22 red in black and white image
4:32 beautiful black and white shift to color with Suzuki go to green lettering that he uses in several opening credit shots
5:52 low angle shot of Yakuza watching Kurata Building
6:32 close up on Chiharu, the beautiful young singer present throughout the film who loves Tetsu
8:44 Tetsu wearing flashy light blue suit
9:44 fence around with Tetsu in foreground trying to negotiate his way out of life of crime
10:45 close up on girl giggling
11:00 Manhole Jazz Club, purple is dominant color inside, young and vibrant atmosphere inside the club which is shot with unusual angles
13 min Tokyo Drifter song in surreal looking club room with solid yellow walls and white piano , stairs leading up to a single door
13:44 canted angle of roads
15:08 neo lights with close ups on city at night
18:13 light blue in mise en scene matching Tetsu suit
21 min cutaway shot to giggling girl
21:39 low angle close up of face on phone calls
22:03 shallow focus over the shoulder shot
23:06 trapped door underneath elevator shaft
24:23 Otsuka “Money and power rule now. Honor means nothing!” says standing above with face not in the frame followed by extreme close up on Otsuka’s mouth
27:03 Otsuka’s bright red suit in foreground, over the shoulder shot of Yoshii in background
28:48 floor as ceiling shot
30 min Tatsu the Viper
30:20 Tetsu and Chiharu sitting at bar in Yellow Room
31:57 whistling theme song during car crushing montage
33:52 room above the club’s purple da
35:07 main villain in bright red suit sitting calmly in lower right corner of the frame surrounded by green in mise en scene
37:30 body positioning in frame not on same level
40:40 Chiharu descending stairs singing in yellow room
41:19 switch from Yellow Room to dark blue color palette in long shot of training traveling along tracks in Winter
42:46 hilarious how gangsters refer to the organization they work for like they were lawyers or accountants
43:26 Tetsu shown in room surrounded by wood bars resembling prison despite the beautiful architecture
45:40 song returns with Tetsu walking through mountain terrain
46:30 zoom in on X marked window
48:33 profile shot proceeding Western style standoff with approaching train, great close up shot followed by an immediate rapid zoom in
56:54 dissolve edit from Tetsu leaving in Train during Winter to skyline shot
57:27 nighttime shot of Japan’s metropolitan area
59:47 nice use of door opening as frame and blocking
1:00:30 brawl at club breaking out with American women and soldiers present along with Japanese
1:06:06 profile shot of Tetsu with green in background
1:07:07 over the shoulder shot with Kurata in foreground with back to camera
1:07:27 beautiful composition; low angle shot in club in purple background and four men meeting with Kurata and Otsuka flanked on right and left and other 2 men’s faces not visible
1:14:14 walk through empty streets, feelings of regret
1:15:39 Kurata and Otsuka surrounded by solid black wall
1:15:45 Chiharu loyal to Tetsu and refuses 8to sing theme song after his “death”
1:17:45 Tetsu in white for the first time
1:22:00 neon lights used to perfection with closing credits
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki gives us an 83-minute expressionist Masterpiece
I actually watched this 2 nights in a row, the first one my brother watched along so I wasn’t really taking notes, so watched again tonight
There is almost no point in trying to make sense of the plot aside from the very basics, you have a young and fiercely loyal Yakuza hitman trying to give up a life of crime after his bosses criminal organization is dissolved but the powers that be won’t allow this to happen, that is all you need to know as beyond that it is absurd to the max, actually some similarities to some of Godard’s 60’s films like Pierrot le Fou (1965) and Made in USA (1966) with the playfulness and absurd storylines and with Wes Anderson’s dedication to color which alone is worthy of its own essay.
The use of color and shifting set pieces are magnificent from Night Clubs to isolated trains in Japanese Winter and a compound that reminded me of the location of the Final Battle between The Bride and O-Ren in Kill Bill Vol 1. There are also all those color-coded rooms; The Yellow Room, Purple Room, or Green Room, the White Room
The use of color is gorgeous as mentioned but the creative framing and compositions deserves recognition such as the immaculate low angle shot at 1:07:27 in the purple room with the blocking of the four gangsters meeting with only Kurata and Otsuka flanked on right and left and other 2 men’s faces not visible
The compositions in many of the cutaway shots to Chiharu singing are beautiful. There is a dreamlike nature a la David Lynch to many of these scenes, hard not to think of Blue Velvet even if the tone is quite different, I love the title song repeated throughout the film similar to what Altman would do in The Long Goodbye (1973) 7 years later
Verdict: MP
Drake,
What did you think was stronger Tokyo Drifter or Branded to Kill? I had seen both more than once prior to study but was really impressed by recent viewing of Tokyo Drifter
@James Trapp – Tokyo Drifter is the highest graded film for Suzuki
What are your grades for Tokyo Drifter and Branded to kill?
@Alt Mash- I’d like a chance at a few of them again – hopefully before the director’s page updates where I’m sure Suzuki will finally get his own page
@Drake@Alt Mash – smart to wait for another viewing, for Tokyo Drifter especially as it’s a stylistic blast that even at 83 min is a lot to take in
Fighting Elegy (1966)
Notes:
Set in 1935
Starts with classroom full of High School students although the actors are probably in their 30s
4:26 lead character behind wooden bars, frequent shot with Suzuki
8 min Kiroku starts training as a way to refocus energy and angst
13:30 an intense fighting session, basically a Fight Club
20:48 zoom in on Kiroku through the fence
23:30 fighting scene uses high shots per second
29:48 montage of close up shots on the various weapons the approaching combatants were holding
30 min gusts of wind present in several scenes so far with occasional sandstorm
34:30 profile shot
35:12 character behind wooden bars again
38:17 strong composition with Kiroku standing in foreground holding his rifle while facing commander with his fellow soldiers standing in unison in background of the frame; Kiroku is clearly a rebel of sorts which naturally gets him into trouble as he resists conformity
39:42 Kiroku again isolated in frame, here in the background with fellow soldiers standing unison in foreground
41:55 rapid pellet like shots fired at officers inside office using slow motion and extreme close ups
47:07 low angle shot of Kiroku sitting on rock having talk with his father
48:05 Welles style low angle shot
50:18 strange sequence with alternating aspect ratios but with each only covering about half the frame at a time, I haven’t seen this before
54 min dissolve edit used shortly after Kiroku leaves school in disgust
55:10 interesting framing using roof of building on slanted angle
1:04:50 gorgeous low angle shot as camera pans in woods with Sun poking through a la Kurosawa in Rashomon
1:06:30 tracking shot of Kiroku approaching fearlessly despite being massively outnumbered
1:11:00 after the fight in which many were hurt badly, we see a Suzuki trait of disorientation by way of close-up shots and a stretch with high number of shots per second
1:16:58 shot of soldiers hanging upside down from clothesline then camera pans to sign “Principals Office”
1:18:33 jump to Winter with snow, window as frame as camera slowly zooms out
Thoughts:
Quite hilarious intentional or otherwise with a great satire on fascism and the Japanese Imperial Army, Suzuki, himself seemed to have a rebellious streak, he was a bit of an iconoclast so not surprising that he would be drawn to this material
A bit of mediation of teenage angst (despite many of the actors probably being in their late 20s and even early 30s) and conformity
Some strong compositions showing Kiroku as a rebel with Kiroku positioned away from groups of young Japanese men positioned together whether in line of seated in classroom
Verdict: R
Branded to Kill (1967)
Notes:
Starts with leisurely piano score and theme song set to opening credits
Back to black and white
2:15 Joe Shishido as Hanada in back seat rocking sunglasses despite it being night
3 min Shishido ordering steam white rice at bar
3:32 “booze and women kill a killer”
5:20 profile shot close up with Hanada
6:50 “the glory of # 1” hilarious the way they talk about Hitman’s rankings like they were having a conversation about College Football
8:30 Jazz score kicks in
11:15 camera moves to long shot as car crosses bridge before a POV shot used from Hanada driving
14:32 slow motion
17:37 window as frame for mounted gun
20:20 profile shot of femme fatale character named Misako Nakajô played by actress Annu Mari
21:15 love triangle montage of sorts with Shishido character sniffing white rice, his girlfriend from the opening nightclub scene showering, and cutaway shots to femme fatale in the rain
30:23 Misako’s head shown in isolation in pouring rain as she speaks to Hanada about a job
31:58 butterfly interrupts the hit with sniper rifle
33:13 “you’ve lost your ranking and will be killed”
34:21 Suzuki using pans across apartment more frequently
34:55 “we’re beasts” said during sex scene with soft focus
36:32 camera tracks Hanada
36:57 zoom in on Misako through the waterfall
38:34 pan across apartment with butterflies covering wall
39:20 Misako with perfect femme fatale line telling Shishido why he won’t kill her yet “but you won’t until you’ve ravished me”
40:53 keyhole as frame with butterflies along wall and gun on the floor; amazing composition
45:16 rifle almost the length of the frame
46:08 bizarre collage of butterflies in various frames
50:10 low angle silhouette image with Shishido standing in doorway frame
55:30 Misako shown on projector being interrogated for not killing Hanada
57:03 great shot with projector image of dead Misako over Hanada’s head as if burning into his mind
1:04:44 we finally see “# 1” with appropriate low angle shot building up his reputation
1:06:53 camera pans around the entire city in a night vision as a panicked Hanada is taunted by # 1
1:13:46 Hanada meets # 1 again face to face, the classic bad guy talking and philosophizing instead of killing protagonist
1:15:20 “your training is inadequate” # 1 says to Hanada after explaining that he can literally sleep with his eyes open, hilarious
1:19:16 the two hitmen eat together at restaurant is just as comical as it sounds
1:23:04 training to battle # 1 like a boxer getting ready for fight
1:23:44 hallway long shot
1:24:30 empty boxing arena, dim lighting as tension grows
1:27:10 lights blinking as # 1 toys with Hanada along with tape recording “this is how # 1 works; he wears you down”
1:28:35 the absurdity of this situation is so funny after all the build up
1:30:30 the theme song returns shortly before final shot
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki was fired after this film by the Studio, tension had been building for a while as the Studio ordered him to make more conventional gangster movies, advice he wisely ignored even if it did get him fired. Like Tokyo Drifter this is so utterly unpredictable and near impossible to describe to someone not familiar with Suzuki
Absurd for sure but if Tokyo Drifter had elements of Godard in its playfulness, Branded to Kill has elements of Jean Pierre Melville’s meta-awareness; Melville’s characters frequently understood their place within the film whether they were a cop, thief, informer, etc. Like Melville’s characters the characters in this film understand their place with their hilarious hyper focus on their hitman ranking # “the glory of being number 1” like they were boxers talking about getting their title shot
Similar to Park Chan Wook sex scenes are graphic but not (in my opinion) exploitative which I would define as sex used for either shock value or for cheap thrills but here sex is intrinsically linked to violence, I love the “we’re beasts” line as sex is undeniably one of the most animalistic things people do
There is a fever dream vibe throughout the film, I particularly love how the film transforms into a psychological thriller of sorts in the last 20-25 min with # 1 toying with Hanada leading to the inevitable showdown
Around the 21:15 mark of the film there is a series of images, a sort of love triangle montage sequence of 3 shots; Shishido character sniffing white rice, his girlfriend from the opening nightclub scene showering, and cutaway shots to femme fatale in the rain who he is clearly attracted too more than his girlfriend. This is just one example, but you have these rapid sequences in the film
There are creative framing and angles throughout; one of my favorites is a keyhole shot with the keyhole as frame with butterflies along wall and Misako standing in the room with a gun on the ground
Verdict: MP (in my top 100 list at # 95)
Zigeunerweisen (1980)
Notes:
Starts with classic music and close up of record playing during opening credits, already seems like something different from everything in this study prior to this one
5:20 exterior shot of train moving with mountains in the background
6:40 slow motion shot of group of about 15 people moving in unison on a beach
This film focuses on 2 friends; a professor named Aochi and his former colleague, Nakasago, who is now living as a nomad
7:20 bizarre, animated image of cartoon looking red crab moving out of woman’s pants and onto the beach
12:50 strange quartet of musicians play along the beach
20:32 trio of musicians with middle playing a banjo like instrument
24:44 camera drops back to a long shot of the pier
27:07 cutaway to waves crashing upon rocks
34:38 all dishes are a saturated red
36:08 slow zoom from record player from opening credits
38:08 open door as frame
38:23 thumping score with slow zoom
40:20 beautiful geological structure makes humans tiny by comparison
44:38 gorgeous shot of window frame with solid orange in the background
44:44 great shot using blocking
45:46 stunning shot with hallway field of depth
48:08 long shot with camera held in place
54:10 great using of multiple frames using doors
1:00:55 a bizarre chase seen through a house with narrow hallways
1:11:25 haunting image with 3 dead bodies below Nakasago, all captured in low angle shot in underground tunnel
1:18:59 clever mirror shot places Aochi on opposite side of frame
1:20:05 Antonioni style shot with physical barrier between 2 characters on opposite sides of frame, shortly after this is juxtaposed by close up shot on both faces next to each other
1:22:22 3 characters form triangle with female Geisha in the middle of two men although in foreground
1:30:55 beautiful low angle shot with use of color, purple, in mise en scene
1:32:02 colorful frame with primary colors
1:33:52 shot of Nakasago on top of hill near top of frame looking down on children singing has a fairy tale
image
1:36:28 cutaway to shot of Sun taking up entire frame
1:37:37 thumping noise returns with gliding camera through a number of beautiful images of nature
1:46:50 camera moves back with shot through a white sheet around the bed which turns green and other colors over the next couple of minutes
1:59:24 shot of 3 characters in hallway, triangle
2:01:21 painterly image with trees in foreground and water in background
2:08:42 title reference, which refers to classical music
2:11:24 beautiful shot with subject in middle of frame and water in background, shot from inside residence and through the glass door
2:12:35 repeated shot through film
2:16:18 great mirror shot
2:16:44 close up on 2 beers while music from opening scene plays
Thoughts:
This is the 1st of films known as The Taisho Trilogy named after a Japan Era that last from 1912 to 1926 and gets its name from the ruling Emperor Taishō although this period is known for its liberalism. After being fired by Nikkatsu Studios following Branded to Kill in 1967 Suzuki didn’t get a chance for another feature film for 13 years with this trilogy and here Seijun Suzuki goes with something entirely different here in terms of content, style, and the fact that all the other films so far in the Study were approximately 90 min or less while this one is 144 min
Perhaps the editing is the most interesting aspect of this film as Suzuki defies the rules of continuity with abrupt transitions of characters and objects into and out of the frame, there is a surreal aspect to it, resembling to a certain degree David Lynch films as the story feels like its drifting in and out of consciousness,
Jump cuts and unusual editing throughout the film, the characters here are often positioned looking in different directions or having physical barriers like walls in between them
Making sense of this is near impossible, like some of Godard’s work in the 60s there is little to no concrete plot and even attempting to make sense of it all is basically a waste of time, instead best to just try to experience it like watching something like Stalker
Verdict: HR/MS
Kagero-za (1981)
Notes:
Starts with serene image of water and montage of shots of water during opening credits
Set in Tokyo in 1926
3:10 woman standing on stairs near middle of frame wearing purple robe and holding flowers
5:50 characters in different planes of the frame
6:20 slow motion set to image of woman walking down stairs with flowers flying off
8:50 spinning heads in and out of shot
14:24 slow zoom out beautiful shot along water
19:50 series of shots with woman in seductive positions lying on red match leading to fragmented sex scene
26:48 shot of beautiful woman on stairs similar to shot near opening of the film
28 min haunting music
29:55 composition with person standing quietly in background, common trait in these films I’ve noticed
31 min frequent green in mise en scene
32:40 brief cutaway shot to stairs with flash of a purple umbrella
34:02 two subjects talking in foreground with dancers in background with Jazz music playing
37 min red and green in mise en scene during slow dance scene
51 min private section of train transitions to inside of Japanese house
54 repeated shots of same women in a boat moving along water
55:18 close up shows doll like figure
55:45 green again in mise en scene along with multiple frames
57:27 well-choreographed shots of Geisha dancers, symmetrical frame
1:04:15 beautiful shot of Geisha surrounded by white flowers and quick zoom out
1:05:10 low angle shot of woman in pink robe
1:08:08 several beautiful shots using reflections in pond as images are distorted
1:15:20 “a mysterious woman? Then die with her”
1:15:30 painterly shot of lake with bright green grass in foreground
1:22:48 overhead shot indoor ceremony
1:26:10 Montage of sexual images on stage
1:32:34 color palette change to purple and light blue
1:38:00 magnetic repelling
1:39:30 bright blue eyes
1:40:27 beautiful colored silhouette image
1:42:24 great montage of architecture in houses throughout this town
1:43:47 bright colors and primary colors in mise en scene
1:44:33 frame using stage and floor of theatre, primary colors in background
1:50:55 slow zoom out followed by beginning of children’s play on same stage
1:56:12 play just as strange as everything before it in this film
1:56:58 one of best shots of film with multiple layers of depth and frame within frames, really just a great composition
2:00:15 single actress on stage, bright colors in background
2:04:42 stunning use of color in frame
Thoughts:
2nd installment of Taisho Trilogy
Similar to the 1st film the editing and lack of continuity immediately stands out
There are beautiful images throughout the film which admittingly is quite challenging, again to some degree you have to except that much of the film can’t be understood in any conventional way and this can be difficult to get through at times so I mainly tried to just enjoy the imagery and experience the film rather than trying to make sense of it all
Verdict: R/HR
Yumeji (1991)
Notes:
N/A
Thoughts:
Seijun Suzuki 3rd and final installment in the Taisho Trilogy
More of the same with beautiful images in particular great use of frames and colors
Like the 2 previous installments the narrative is thin, here even thinner than the first 2 which is why I did not take notes it was very experimental and difficult to watch and take conventional notes
Impressive use of collage and color
Verdict: R
Final Ranking and Grades:
Study Summary:
Seijun Suzuki was one of the first directors I watched when I ordered the Criterion Channel in 2019, I went through all 7 of his available films and was mesmerized by his bombastic style and ability to capture youthful energy. Like Hitchcock’s MacGuffin the plots of Suzuki’s films are often beside the point, the real value is setting up all the great action, hilarious dialogue, shifting narrative, etc.
Suzuki has a legitimate claim as best director of Yakuza films, which are basically Japanese version of gangster movies. Suzuki is to Yakuza as Jean Pierre Melville was to French Gangster Films, although there are also some considerable different; Melville’s films have a cool detachment to them, his go to guy Alain Delon his words carefully while Suzuki’s films tended to be more playful and his go to guy Joe Shishido was more verbal and unpredictable. I would argue he has some common traits with another legendary French auteur, Jean Luc Godard. Like Godard Suzuki’s films often are absurd with plots that are not describable by any conventional standards
Ironically Suzuki was fired from his Nikkatsu studio after making Branded to Kill which is now considered by many (including myself) to be his magnum opus. Speaking of which pre-study I had Branded to Kill as easily his best film, but Tokyo Drifter blew me away so much to the point where I really had to think it over when making the final rankings. None the less I still have Branded to Kill at the number 1 spot with both as MPs. Tokyo Drifter might have minute for minute more standout images but is less cohesive. While both are Yakuza films, they at the same time transcend genre a la Godard’s work in the 60s.
While his Nikkatsu films are his best known and most popular outside of Japan it is The Taisho Trilogy that is considered to be his great films in Japan. His Yakuza films are my personal favorite and I think his 2 best films hands down are Branded to Kill and Tokyo Drifter which are his 2 MPs. I loved seeing this beautiful trilogy, really shows off Suzuki full talent as he can do more than just genre films. Of course to some degree these are just as bizarre as something like Tokyo Drifter. The Taisho Trilogy is dense and quite challenging but even if it does not work at all times one thing you can never accuse Suzuki of is being conventional or predictable and certainly not uninteresting. All 3 films which total nearly 7 hours are not an easy watch and I would not recommend to anyone who is not a cinephile. I am glad that I watched them but if I am being honest, I am not sure I will be returning to them for a long time. I will absolutely return to the Nikkatsu films as they are incredibly rewatchable
# 1 Branded to Kill (1967), MP
# 2 Tokyo Drifter (1966), MP
# 3 Gate of Flesh (1964), MS
# 4 Detective Bureau 2-3: Go to Hell Bastards! (1963), MS/HR
# 5 Zigeunerweisen (1980), HR
# 6 Youth of the Beast (1963), HR
# 7 Take Aim at the Police Van (1960), HR
# 8 Everything Goes Wrong (1960), HR/R
# 9 Kagero-za (1981), R/HR
# 10 Fighting Elegy (1966), R
# 11 Story of a Prostitute (1965), R
# 12 Yumeji (1991), R
@James Trapp- Love reading these reviews and this summary especially. Appreciate you sharing this James.
@Drake – appreciate it, this was one of the most purely enjoyable studies yet.
I hope that before updating the directors list, you will have time to check out some films by Wojciech Has. I think that just with The Saragossa Manuscript and The Hourglass Sanatorium (both fringe MP) he could make the list.
There are always gonna be disagreements with a list of this sort, but overall I really like this list quite a bit. It’s obvious that you did a deep and thorough research and most names are pretty hard to argue against. I appreciate the fact that you ranked Spielberg and Nolan quite high (even though I’m far from being the biggest fan of the latter, there seems to be this contrarian trend trying to discredit their work just because they enjoy mainstream success).
My only quibble (if I may) is the shortage of Japanese directors. I counted only seven, which seems like an extremely low number to me given how much incredible talent has come out of that country. Maybe I’m just too much of a fan of Asian cinema in general (I would rank pretty much every Asian director (except for Ozu) higher than you have). Other than that, I think it’s a really, really solid list. Keep up the good work, Drake.
@David O. – thanks for the comment. Any director in particular you feel deserves a closer look?
Well, there are quite a few. Japan’s cinema has incredible depth. I’ll try to restrain myself and mention only five, otherwise I’m gonna keep writing until next week hahaha:
1. Seijun Suzuki. I’m sure you’ve heard about him, but I don’t know if you’ve seen any of his films. I bring him up because I think you would enjoy him a lot. His movies don’t usually have the best scripts, but they ooze swagger and style. He was influential and extremely prolific, but his 60s stretch is definitely his peak. My favourite film from him is probably Tokyo drifter, but Branded to kill is usually regarded as his magnum opus.
2. Kinuyo Tanaka. She was an extraordinary actress and also a remarkable, deeply sensitive filmmaker with a very keen eye for visual composition. Out of the six films she directed, I’ve seen five, and all of them are worth watching. The eternal breasts is perhaps her best work, but The moon has risen and Love under the crucifix are also magnificent.
3. Hiroshi Teshigahara. The two-punch of Woman in the dunes (a clear MP) and The face of another (a solid MS) is enough for me to put him on the list, but there’s more to his filmography than those two masterworks. Pitfall and Rikyu are also quite good. I haven’t had the chance to see more from him, but I intend to do so if I can, but unfortunately they’re not easy to find.
4. Yoshishige Yoshida. Not my favourite, but probably the most avant-garde of all the directors who came from the Japanese New Wave (which is saying a lot giving how batsh*it insane some of the films from this period are). His films are quite challenging and extreme, but he was a visual trailblazer of undeniable talent. Woman of the lake is a good place to start with him because, even though it’s cutting-edge, it’s still one of his most tempered films. Eros + Massacre is his most revered work. And then you have something like Heroic purgatory, which is almost impenetrable, but the things he does in that film in terms of editing and cinematography are something to behold.
5. Mikio Naruse. The best realist in classic Japanese cinema, Naruse was all about subtlety and thematic depth. He lacked the visual flair of his best-known contemporaries, which may work against him based on your criteria, but he was a superb director of actors, maybe the best one of his time. He made me fall completely in love with Hideko Takamine (who is, to this day, my favourite Japanese actress of all time). I love almost every film I’ve watched from him, but if forced to choose, I’d probably stick with Yearning and When a woman ascends the stairs. I would recommend giving those two a chance, and, if you like them, then you can dive deeper into his filmography.
I could name at least five or six more who I think deserve to be in a top 250, but I don’t wanna bore you more than necessary haha.
I gotta ask you though: did you get the chance to take a closer look at Kobayashi’s filmography? I know this may sound hyperbolic, but he’s a top 50 director in my eyes. His 1957-1967 stretch (from Black river to Samurai rebellion) is one that most filmmakers would kill to have under their belts. Even The inheritance, which is supposed to be a minor work, is fantastic.
@David O.- Thanks for the share – really solid work – appreciate it and agree with much of this (literally saw The Inheritance five days ago – and yes – it is superb). I am wrapping up a Kobayashi study tonight actually, have completed a Naruse study in the last 3 months, and a Suzuki study in the last 12 months. I am not saying the TSPDT list is gospel – but only 1 of the 6 directors you mention here is on the TSPDT top 250 director’s list and that is Naruse – and who I am fairly confident does not warrant a spot on the top 250 actually.
@Drake – Has Kobayashi greatly gone up in your estimation?
@Harry- Yes, indeed. Kobayashi will soar up the list.
@Drake – I’m nowhere near as knowledgeable as you but I think the best directors NOT on your list currently are Raul Ruiz, Kim Ki Duk and Joseph Losey.
@Harry- Don’t sell yourself short – your comments always indicate you know a great deal. Ruiz and Losey will be remedied upon the next update. I’ll add Kim Ki Duk to my study list again.
@Drake – Kim Ki Duk is just really impressive, I apply some of your praise to Rashomon to Spring, Summer Winter, Fall… the beauty of the film alone would warrant it high praise, and so would the structure, yet you have both there to be awed by.
He also feels like his own brand/author when so many of his films are also silent, maybe less dialogue than Valhalla Rising in some that I’ve caught.
@Drake – really happy to hear that about Kobayashi… maybe we will get to catch Tatsuya Nakadai on the best actors list now if he wasn’t already on his way.
@Drake Well, to be honest with you, I don’t pay too much attention to TSPDT when it comes to Japanese directors. Don’t give me wrong, I love their website and it’s helped me discover a lot of films over the years, but if I had to name one blind spot, it would be that one. I mean, just the fact that Imamura sits at #180 and Kobayashi doesn’t even make the cut is incomprehensible to me and tells you everything you need to know about how overlooked the Japanese New Wave has been in Western studies (Kobayashi is not exactly New Wave, but he’s definitely not a classicist either). But hey, at least they included Oshima, which is a nice touch and one I wouldn’t disagree with at all (I actually prefer him to Yoshida, I just recommended the latter because he’s stylistically bolder and I thought you might connect with him more due to that).
As for Naruse, I’m not even gonna fight you on that because I understand where you’re coming from and, like I said, I knew he probably wasn’t gonna be your cup of tea. I include him in my top 250 because I love his films, even though the reasons why I love them are the writing and the acting, not necessarily the visual prowess. Same thing happens with Koreeda (who, interestingly enough, did manage to squeak in TSPDT’s top 250), they both are directors who get in based on the strength of their filmographies, even if they’re not visual masters.
I’m glad to hear you’ve done a Suzuki study. Will he make the cut once you update the list? Which one would you say is your favourite film from him?
@David O.- Fair, and like I said – TSPDT is not gospel truth and this was an excellent share from you- thank you – just a chance it may be more about your preferences and tastes (the Naruse one makes me a little suspect but whatever) – which is fine. As for Naruse – if we start including the sort of “writing and acting” directors on the list of 250 … that list will have 1000+ names on it. Hard to say on where Suzuki will land until I get a chance to look at it with the updates and changes. Hopefully start putting that together later this fall.
@Drake Well, yeah, every time I talk about film I am sharing my preferences and tastes haha, but don’t worry because out of all the directors I mentioned, Naruse is the only one who’s mostly about substance. The other four are all pretty stylish in their own right because I know that’s what you value the most (otherwise I wouldn’t have recommended Suzuki). I talked about Naruse having a stronger filmography than his style might suggest because that’s what you said about Chaplin, which I think is a very valid argument, by the way (I would say that others like Allen, Wilder and Farhadi also fit this description). I’m not saying Naruse would be in my top 50. I mean, for me he’s a good director and he has clear and identifiable traits. I watch a Naruse film and I know it’s a Naruse film. Still, his visual presentation is not particularly noteworthy and I will be the first person to admit that. That being said, based on his filmography, I think I could find some room for him in a top 250 because even though he didn’t make any films in the MS-MP range, he did produce several works that at least I would consider to be HRs. Anyway, I said I wasn’t gonna argue with you about Naruse and that’s precisely what I’m doing right now. My apologies hahaha.
I’m glad to know that you will update the list this year, which I’m sure won’t be easy work. I’ll be looking forward to it.
Jaques Becker is missing from the list, Touches pas au gribi, Casque Dór and Le Trou are Masterpieces.
@Stendhal – I can’t speak on the other 2 you reference as I have not seen yet but I am with you on Le Trou (1960) which is yet another MP level film for 1960, already the single best year in Cinema History
Very good list. Agreed on Jacques Becker missing. Also Koreeda, Chabrol, Audiard and Vinterberg who surely deserve a place ahead of Wachowskis, Ari Aster, Hogg and Tom Hooper. Would have Bresson, Malle and Rohmer all higher, but there is of course always subjectivity in any list of this nature.
How about these 3 directors:
Ron Howard
Stephen Frears
Kenneth Branagh
They have deep filmographies. I believe Howard now has 10 archivable films, Frears 8 and Branagh 7. All three are two-time Oscar nominees for best Director.
@Malith- All three missed the cut – but could certainly end up in the 250+ expansion.
Norman Jewison is another one who has a very deep filmography. 3-time Oscar nominee for best Director. With 8 archivable films I think.
1965-Cincinnati Kid
1967-In the Heat of the Night
1968-The Thomas Crown Affair
1975-Rollerball
1979-And Justice for All
1984-A Soldiers Story
1987-Moonstruck
1999-The Hurricane
@Malith- For sure, made some quality films- most directors need a clear, identifiable style or a big one or two movies to crack that top 250 though.
Who are the biggest what if directors ever? Due to death or other circumstances?
@Lebron Smith – I usually avoid these things and try to focus on what happened. But, for the sake of your question, here goes.
Orson Welles – Welles is probably the most popular what if. Drake’s Welles page covers most of what I want to say, so I’ll be brief with this one. As big of a masterpiece as The Magnificent Ambersons is, by all accounts, Welles intended version would have rivaled Citizen Kane.
Andrei Tarkovsky – Died at 54. I think it’s safe to assume he had another 3 or 4 films left. Given his track record, they would have been MS, MS/MP, or MP level. If this happens, he may be my #1 director, especially if I ever come around on Mirror and have it where the consensus does.
Yasujirō Ozu – Died at 60. Given the rate at which he was putting out films and their quality, I will assume he would have released another 5-10, and they would have been HR, HR/MS, MS, MS/MP, and MP level.
Jean-Luc Godard – If someone wants to argue 1960-1967 Godard is the most dominant stretch by a director in history, they’ll get no disagreement from me. Unfortunately, he became interested in other things for a 13-years, and Tout Va Bien is the only notable film he made between 1968-1980. When he finally got back to making narrative features, he lost the magic he had from 1960-1967.
Max Ophüls – Died at 54. He was getting stronger before his death, with 6 of 7 films at an MS or MP level.
F. W. Murnau – Died at 42. There’s no telling how much more he could have accomplished.
Carl Theodor Dreyer – Starting with The Passion of Joan of Arc, Dreyer never looked back. The issue is the time between his films. 1928, 1932, 1943, 1955, 1964. One wonders what could have been if he had released something every five years.
Of the above, I think Tarkovsky, Ozu, and Godard all had #1 potential. Using a sports comparison, Godard feels similar to Sandy Koufax and Pedro Martinez.
Wouldn’t include Godard here. He fizzled out. His output after Weekend(1967) or Tout va Bien(1972) is incredibly overrated among critics circles. I wish Antonioni made more films after Blow-Up(1966).
@Ian and @Lebron Smith- great work/list here- Taste of Cinema does a good job- including Fassbinder http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2014/10-great-film-directors-who-died-early-in-their-careers/
Guru Dutt?
@Drake – I knew I was forgetting someone! Nice mention on Fassbinder. It’s incredible how many films he was putting out.
@Ian- right, easy to forget about him (I’ve done it myself before) with this list because he was so prolific (12 archiveable films, and I’m sure I’m missing a few)- but still- yeah, dead at 37
Jean Vigo.
Directors with the most archivable films:
1.Woody Allen – 34
2.Alfred Hitchcock – 33
3.Ingrid Bergman – 31
3.John Ford – 31
5.Akira Kurosawa – 27
6.Martin Scorsese – 24
7.Steven Spielberg – 23
8.Howard Hawks – 21
9.Jean-Luc Godard – 20
9.Steven Soderbergh – 20
9.John Huston – 20
What is an archivable film?
Film with a grade of R or higher
I see. Any thoughts on the comparison to another similar list I posted below?
Didn’t Victor Sjöström make this list?
@Malith- it is a miss for sure- but there were a few. Sjöström will certainly be on the next update
How About Cary Joji Fukunaga?
Top 5:
1.Jane Eyre(2011)
2.Beasts of No Nation(2015)
3.True Detective(2014)
4.No Time to Die(2021)
5.Sin Nombre(2009)
His top 5 is strong. What do you think?
@Malith – for sure – very strong. Has not become the next Denis Villeneuve quite yet- but still – look forward to each new project.
Nuri Bilge Ceylan should be in a conversation for the best director of the 21st century imo, if not the best. His films are not only some of the most beautiful but they are full of depth and layers and they are masterfully constructed with clear overall vision and structuring and development that supports it. Every detail is always meaningful and plays a part and is in function of the bigger picture. He is a master of pacing, his cinematography is beautiful, his style is pretty static but always great framing, great shots, always masterful lighting, colors… His resume is not the most rich in terms of quantity so I don’t know how that limits his positioning on these types of lists but when it comes to the craft of filmmaking he is one of the best modern directors.
@Njegos- Thank you for visiting the site and for sharing this here
@Drake how many archivable films does Seijun Suzuki have after your study?
@LeBron Smith- 7 films right now
Very surprised by the lack of Tsai Ming-liang. Goodbye, Dragon Inn is possibly the best film of the 21st Century and he rivals PTA as the best filmmaker alive for my money. Getting into him helped me understand the merits of slow cinema. Would definitely be a top 100 filmmaker for me
@Andrew Eaton- Thank you for the comment. So this page is just over 2 years old (update coming as the next big project). Since sort of publishing – I did a Tsai Ming-liang study catching 9 of his films- many of them have pages on the website here and 3 of the made the recently finished top 1000 films of all-time.
What do you think of Rebels of the Neon God? Probably my favorite film of his.
What directors have influenced the most directors? I assume the earliest silent directors would be slot pretty high
I wonder if anyone has made a family tree of sorts, showing which directors influenced each other-would be interesting
@MovierJoker- Certainly the earlier directors are more likely to be influential – but it is fun to see the crew that came up in the 1990s (like Tarantino, Wes Anderson, and Fincher- feel like everything is Fincher lately) influence so many new films.
I think this list in itself is a pretty good starting point. Hitchcock’s manipulation of camera movement and editing to create suspense is everywhere. Ozu’s approach to framing almost seems to be the default comparison now whenever a director uses a window or doorway to create a particularly excellent composition. Then there’s Scorsese and Coppola’s influence on crime films, Godard and Truffaut when we look at subverting continuity in narrative and editing, de Sica and Rossellini innovating realism, and Kurosawa when it comes to blocking and editing action. It’s natural that the most accomplished artists in their field will also be the most influential, even if it’s not a hard and fast rule.
But like you said, it’s difficult to look past the silent film directors who invented the cinematic language everyone uses today, and which has become pretty universal. We don’t have noir or horror as we know it without Murnau or Lang, we don’t have montages without Eisenstein, and don’t have much of anything without D.W. Griffith. Creating some sort of visual representation of that lineage would be an ambitious project, but fascinating to see.
Crazy you didn’t mention Welles here. Branagh went full Orson Welles in A Haunting in Venice.
Now you have me wondering what director is the most accomplished, while also influencing the least amount of films/film makers.
Robert Bresson’s approach to acting comes to mind for me-while loads of directors admire bresson, I can’t really name any directors who have copied the way he drained his actors of all emotion/energy
What Nagisa Oshima films have you seen and/or archived?
@MovierJoker – In the Realm of the Senses, Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence and Taboo
@Drake- Do you have anything from Lav Diaz in the archives. What do you make of his work?
@AP- I don’t believe I’ve caught any
@AP- I don’t believe I’ve caught any
How about Fernando Meirelles(City of God, The Constant Gardener, The Two Popes)?
What are your thoughts on Tony Scott and Michael Bay?
Two auteurs who I quite like. Regardless of their flaws, you can’t deny they know their way around a good shot.
Bordwell article on Tony Scott(esp. his later work)
https://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2013/02/03/tony-and-theo/
@MovieJoker- thanks for sharing. I’ve read this Bordwell article. I was able to meet him decades ago- I love Bordwell. The page mostly makes me want to catch Angelopoulos’ work. I don’t think there are any Michael Bay films in the archives ( I could be wrong) but Tony Scott has a 5 or 6.
Yes, one of the great film scholars.
Just curious: what is the rational for George A. Romero being relatively high compared to other filmmakers much more represented/likely to appear on a Sight and Sound list (IE Abbas Kiarostami, Terence Davies, Mike Leigh, Peter Weir, Edward Yang)?
Is it because of Romero’s deep influence on cinematic horror (and on zombie media in general)?
Edward Yang will be much higher if a new update arrives. His two main films got huge upgrades.
Same for Terrence Davies.
Very deserved in my view.
Those two films are very special.
Also, what are your thoughts on Romero and his legacy?
I have not watched any Romero films yet actually
I see.
Any thoughts on the comparison between this list and another similar list I posted below?
@RW-Interesting question. I’m not sure. There are a lot of big changes since this list was published. I’d say Herzog-overrated, Fassbinder-underrated. Fassbinder is clearly superior. For example in the top 1000 films list here Fassbinder had 8 films while Herzog only had 3.
I think most people have not seen these films from foreign auteurs. And von Sternberg existed ages ago. While directors like Huston, Boyle and Jackson are household names who worked in Hollywood pictures. On a lower scale, this applies to Frears, Crowe and Jordan as well.
And directors like Chantel Akerman, Lucrecia Martel, Clair Denis have extraordinarily high ratings because of feminist themes. And this applies to a lot of ordinary films by black filmmakers which are praised enormously because of diversity themes. Although I can’t really pinpoint any suitable director here
Is there anyone you find particularly overrated or underrated on the Cinema Archives list?
@RW – Given the updated top 1000 list I think its fair to say there will be some major changes making this question tricky. Chan-wook Park would have been my biggest discrepancy at # 220 but he is going to skyrocket with the next list given huge upgrades to several of his films (upgrades I strongly agree with) I also thought Polanski at #38 should be higher but again given upgrades to several of is key films I think he will rise quite a bit. Another complicating factor is that there is a 10 year moratorium meaning films made within the last 10 years are not eligible.
@RW – It kills me to say it given how much I love The Wild Bunch (1969) but Sam Peckinpah at #58 is overrated. The Wild Bunch is ranked at #83 which I am on board with, I might even go higher but at Garrett & Billy the Kid at # 202 I disagree with, its a solid film but after a recent rewatch I don’t think its really all that close to The Wild Bunch
De Palma is ranked at # 64 which is actually higher than the concensus and I know Drake is a big admirer of his work but I actually think he should be higher than that. His filmography is more extensive than I initally believed. Blow Out is a straight MP but he Carrie, Scarface, Dressed to Kill are all near MS or MP level. He is a Virtuoso behind the camera and even his weaker films still have several moments worthy of high praise
I think Carlito’s Way is near masterpiece level. There is one out of place scene. But it’s a wild ride and fantastic film. It’s Pacino best performance outside the big 3 imo. Every time he screams/shouts there is a tinge of sadness associated with it.
@Malith – good call on Carlito’s Way, I might put it just below but its close. I think Pacino’s performance is more impressive in Carlito’s Way (or at the very least its the more complex role) although I think Scarface is overall more impressive but they are a great pairing
1. Blow Out – MP
2. Scarface – MP
3. Dressed to Kill – MP/MS
4. Carrie – MS/MP
5. Carlito’s Way – MS
Then you have another 4 films that are at least HR in no particular order:
Sisters – overlooked gem in my opinion
Obsession
Untouchables
Body Double
I think Obsession is more overlooked than Sisters tbh.
When I first stumbled upon Cinema Archives, my mind immediately went to a similar project, Erik Beck/Nighthawk News’ all-time rankings of films and directors.
I thought it might be interesting and thought-provoking to compare both lists of the all-time greatest film directors; you can see Beck’s top 100 list here: https://nighthawknews.wordpress.com/2022/08/29/the-100-greatest-directors-of-all-time-3-0-the-complete-list/
Four directors appear in both lists’ top ten: Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Ingmar Bergman, Martin Scorsese.
Five directors on Cinema Archive’s top thirty do not appear in Beck’s top 100: Ozu (4th), Godard (16th), Max Ophüls (17th), Wong Kar-Wai (22nd) and Joseph von Sternberg (26th). I have to say that I completely agree with Cinema Archives here — in my opinion, Ozu directed some of the all-time greatest films.
On the other hand, three directors on Beck’s top 100 do not appear on this page’s top 250: Stephen Frears, Neil Jordan and Cameron Crowe.
The biggest discrepancies in rankings are for Peter Weir (34th on Beck’s list, 177th on Cinema Archives, -143), Danny Boyle (50th and 190th), Peter Jackson (15th and 115th) and John Huston (19th and 102nd).
@ Malith
Re: Werner Herzog, I think it’s important to note that Cinema Archives, by excluding documentaries, really only takes half of his career into account.
@ James Trapp
For me, the most underrated have to be Peter Weir at 177th and especially Masaki Kobayashi outside of the top 200.
@RW-All of Masaki Kobayashi’s films got upgraded after this ranking. He would be much higher if a new update arrives.
That’s good.
I think Samurai Rebellion and Harakiri are as good as any Kurosawa samurai movies, and that Kwaidan is an unforgettable visual experience.
Samurai Rebellion stayed at the same level. Roughly around the same level as Kurosawa’s Sanjuro. But others like Kwaidan, Harakiri and The Human Condition(which was not even included when this page was written) got big upgrades but still below I think 5 Kurosawa films(Seven Samurai, Rashomon, High and Low, Ikiru and Bad Sleep Well) roughly around the same level as Ran and Yojimbo. And 3 other Kobayashi films got added as well apart from The Human Condition.(The Thick-Walled Room, Black River, The Inheritance). These upgrades are shown in the Tatsuya Nakadai(Kobayashi’s muse) actor page
https://thecinemaarchives.com/2023/06/30/the-61st-best-actor-of-all-time-tatsuya-nakadai/
@ James Trapp
I like quite a few Peckinpah films but I have to agree with you. I think one would have a very hard time arguing that he has either a stronger filmography or a more important role in film history than quite a few names below him on the list.
I also think that John Huston is underrated at #102.
@RW – Huston will surely move down with the next directors list update on this site.
Really? I think he’s seriously underrated here, then. I see that The Dead and The African Queen and Under the Volcano don’t even make the top 1,000.
Yes, there are quite a few mediocre films in his catalogue, but I think there’s absolutely greatness there (and that he deserves respective as a pioneering film auteur, a screenwriter-turned director at the same time as Preston Sturges made the same move and Orson Welles made Citizen Kane.)
@RW – Huston has a strong filmography no doubt, the argument against him would be his lack of incredible visuals. This site puts a lot of weight on mise en scene, visual beauty, and film form. It puts less weight in writings and acting. I am not saying this is wrong or that I disagree with it just pointing out that this tends to be the priority. Obviously this is not my site, so I am not speaking officially but I have following/posting for couple years so these are my observations. I like Huston too, in particular The Treasure of Sierra Madre is a favorite of mine and features one of my all time favorite performances with Bogart’s iconic Fred C Dobbs. Howard Hawks was once ranked # 14 and is now # 29. By the next ranking I would be suprised if he cracks the top 40.
I feel like there are some absolutely stunning visuals in the John Huston catalogue: the use of filters to make the entirety of Moulin Rouge feel like a Toulouse-Lautrec come to life, the skeleton puppets that open Under the Volcano, the ancient statues shrouded in mist and avalanche in The Man Who Would Be King, the snow-shrouded cemetery at the end of The Dead.
I think Ken Loach is overrated here. I mean Kes is great. But there is nothing really substantial after that. And he is not a style-plus director. Even though his films follow similar themes.
I’d make an argument for Sorry We Missed you, which has some really emotionally affecting moments.
Re: Loach, the question becomes how you deal with a filmmaker whose filmmaking is clearly informed by an ideological agenda.