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.)))
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
@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.
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.
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: https://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
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?
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@Drake Kiarostami page is broken
@Mad Mike- thank you, should be fixed
where is Tsai Ming-liang?
@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.)
The Zhang Yimou page is devoid of text.
@Graham- thank you- should be fixed now
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.)))
@Drake
There is an issue on Bigelow page.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 !!!
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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?
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: https://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
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?
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.
Very Interesting. Mario Monicelli should be here
@max- thanks for visiting the site and comment. Any reason why he should be here?
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
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.
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.