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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
@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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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?
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?
@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.
@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).
@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
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
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
@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.
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
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 https://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.
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
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.
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.
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 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?
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?
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.
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).
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
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
Olivier Assayas
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!
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
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
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: https://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.