best film: Fellini’s 8 ½ stands above the rest in 1963 but it isn’t by a wide margin. Kurosawa’s High and Low is right there as is The Leopard from Visconti. Kurosawa’s use of the full widescreen (Tohoscope) 2.35 : 1 aspect ratio is astonishing. Deep focus black and white compositions have never been stronger. Welles may not be superior to Kurosawa in this regard. As for Visconti’s work, it features a dogmatic dedication to background set design, décor, costumes, wallpaper as art- hundreds of candles in the lighting- clearly a precursor to Barry Lyndon.

1963 is Fellini at the height of his powers—the best film of the year for the second time in four years (1960- La Dolce Vita)

from High and Low- the first 56 minutes are shot essentially in one room—in his home. Kurosawa has these bodies just posing in the frame like a moving painting. You could just randomly pick any moment in the first 56 minutes—pause the frame—and print it out and hang it on your wall

High and Low may not only be 1963’s best — but Kurosawa’s as well– it clearly deserves serious consideration

At 37-minutes- Mifune is center background facing the camera—four detectives and the back of his head (a shot Kurosawa would do often in his 1960’s work that just isn’t there in the 1950’s)- two of the detectives on each side

incredible blocking in Visconti’s The Leopard– bodies staggered throughout the frame

the compositions are such an artistic feat—it would come up again and is certainly a part of Visconti’s traits as an auteur
most underrated: Tom Jones from Tony Richardson is the most underrated film from 1963. It won the Oscar for best picture (this is a somewhat common trend as it turns out- same thing happened to Gigi)- and didn’t deserve to—but it certainly deserves a spot on the TSPDT consensus top 1000.
- It’s British New Wave (clearly Richardson from Look Back in Anger, The Entertainer Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner) taking on some of the expressive, playful style of the French New Wave- mainly Truffaut
- One of the best edited films of the 1960’s
- Academy Award wins for picture, writer, director and score
- It updates Henry Fielding’s for the modern generation—not quite like Sofia Coppola did with Marie Antoinette or Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet but in a similar vein
- Opens with titles and dialogue-less like a silent film then the omniscient voice-over with a sense of humor winking at the audience saying things like “we’ll leave such scenes (sex scene) for decency and decorum”
- Film debut for David Warner
- Prestige period picture/adaptation-but we have comic organ cues for laughing, reflexivity talking to the camera
- Great comic actors like Peter Bull and Hugh Griffith
- Wipe editing, freeze frame, it’s wild—the narrative movies and the transitions are genius—Iris in later, very- Truffaut Shoot the Piano Player
- editing is far superior to any of the five films nominated in that category in 1963
- Richardson directs the hell out this thing
- Hugh Griffith was apparently a handful on set- always drunk—I can only say that his performance is excellent- it matches the style of the editing and pace with perfection
- The freeze frame of Susanna York looking at the camera—long silent sequence after
- Lines like “civilization my trunk” by Griffith at a costume part wearing an elephant costume
- Freeze-frame jump cutting as two eavesdrop on a door
- Freeze frame final shot—years before Butch Cassidy (1969), though four years after The 400 Blows

the first of five Oscar nominations for Albert Finney in Tom Jones- Finney was one faces of the British New Wave- Saturday Night and Sunday Morning– 1960—he’s also a small role in Richardson’s The Entertainer
most overrated: Muriel from Resnais is the most overrated film of 1963. It isn’t an artistic failure by any stretch, but it does sort of land like a thud after Hiroshima Mon Amour and Last Year At Marienbad. The TSPDT consensus has it solidly in the top 10 of 1963 and at #386 of all-time and they’re off here.
- Similar to Hiroshima Mon Amour and Last Year at Marienbad in some regards (meditating on memory, a playful deconstruction of traditional plot and character motivations)—Muriel, of the Time of Return makes the tragic mistake, immeasurably unlike Resnais first two films (this being his third), of being visually unbeautiful and flat
- Resnais’ third feature fiction film—first in color. There’s no real achievement here in color. I’m not sure the reason for the decision. This is also a disappointment given the work other great auteurs were doing in the era like Antonioni in Red Desert in 1964 and Contempt from New Wave- brethren in 1963
- About regret, a past love, without the strong editing—Resnais is almost daring the viewer to watch this film of awkward and purposefully unfulfilling conversations
- Opaque – — a challenge— tough to grab onto – we go off on tangents like one character dealing with a gambling addition, another debt and loan sharks, the elusiveness of title character (there are a couple people mentioned with the name but the main being Jean-Baptiste Thiérrée’s girlfriend who we don’t really see) is that in microcosm – Resnais sets out to prove this is about deconstruction and the film acts as antithesis to tradition film and narrative but unlike Marienbad there isn’t artistry to admire throughout.
gems I want to spotlight: If you want to laugh and get a look at the comic talents of Peter Sellars before Dr. Strangelove then The Pink Panther is a gem worth highlighting. The Great Escape is a fine example of an entertaining prison film, heist film, war film, and action film rolled into one. Lastly, Stanley Donen once again proves I may be underrating his body of work a little with Charade—which slipped into my top 10 of 1963.

Steve McQueen doing his own motorcycle work in The Great Escape

from Donen’s Charade— an essential film for Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn

a magnificent frame here from Donen’s work
trends and notables:
- While international film is thriving (1963 is a major feather in the cap for Fellini, Godard, Kurosawa, Bergman and Visconti) it does appear that the Hollywood machine is breaking down – this big fail will pave the way for The New Hollywood takeover and renaissance which starts really in 1967. The youth culture movement has already started in the other parts of the globe and with music

a stunning pair of paintings from Godard’s Contempt

Godard is in the middle of one of the great stretches for an artist in the medium’s history– his debut was 1960, Contempt in 1963 is already his sixth feature

another stunner from Visconti’s masterpiece

seven of the best eight films of the year come from European auteurs

Cleopatra breaks the record for the most expensive movie ever made (I believe if you factor in inflation it still stands). It is also the #1 film of the year at the box office in the US—and the power couple of Liz Taylor and Richard Burton are massive stars
- 1963 is Fellini at the height of his powers—the best film of the year for the second time in four years (1960- La Dolce Vita)

again another jaw-dropper from High and Low– Kurosawa’s four-year run to start the decade now includes four films that are either Must-See or Masterpiece level— making it fair to ask if you’d take it over his 1950’s period

At 110-minutes— another immaculate composition—the five heads in the frame facing the high rise window—pink smoke in the skyline. The use of color in a black and white film – this is before Rumble Fish and Schindler’s List obviously

There’s another pretty dazzling 30 minute sequence of cat and mouse with the kidnapper at the jazz club and in dope alley. He’s wearing these striking reflective sunglasses. The photography is so crisp
- For the second time in seven years (1957)- Bergman releases two films in one year that Must-See grades or better

Stanley Kramer attempts to make the make the definitive comedy with the 70mm massive ensemble cast in It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. It’s 3 ½ hours and features comedians like Milton Berle, Buddy Hackett, Ethel Merman, Mickey Rooney, William Demarest, Andy Devine, Jerry Lewis and others). This is a continuation of what The Longest Day and How the West Was Won tried to do for the war and western genre in 1962.
- There is an odd lack of auteur debuts and first archiveable films in 1963. I do think 1963 is notable for the stop motion technical skill of Ray Harryhausen in Jason and the Argonauts.
- 1964 would be her big year with Charulata but 1963 in Ray’s The Big City is Madhabi Mukherjee’s first archiveable film in again an otherwise quiet year for firsts- both for actors and directors—not a good sign
best performance male: It is Marcello Mastroianni’s world in 1963—year another year with a mention and the probably the performance of the year. He masterfully plays the Fellini surrogate “Guido” in 8 ½. I think Burt Lancaster has a case for the #1 slot as well. The Leopard is gigantic triumph for Lancaster. He’s absolutely perfect here—he strides around his castle, the ball at the end—such poise and pride. He’s stubborn, cunning, self-aware. It is really a three-horse race at the top though with Gunnar Björnstrand’s career-best work in Winter Light. It is an angry performance—the scene where he eviscerates Ingrid Thulin still overwhelms me after multiple revisits. Mifune gets yet another mention for High and Low. Mifune plays Gondo—an intense business executive in a moral quandary–one of his best performances and he’s in less than half the film. Albert Finney also gives one of the best performances of the year in Tom Jones. Finney plays Tom as a bounder— an adventurer and folk hero—grinning in most shots—a large performance. Lastly, Michel Piccoli in Contempt rounds out the category in 1963 sort of playing Godard himself—another film about cinema like 8 ½.

Marcello Mastroianni makes it three mentions in four years in this category– and he has three archiveable films in 1963 alone

apparently Visconti wanted Laurence Olivier for the part– but it is impossible to argue with the resulting performance from Lancaster- I always admired Lancaster’s willingness to go abroad and work with Visconti and Bertolucci

1963 is a year where there is more than one right answer for who gave the best performance of the year- Gunnar Björnstrand in Bergman’s Winter Light would be a fine choice
best performance female: To be clear, if you were to combine all of the actors into one big category for 1963 the best would all be on the male side—this isn’t always the case but certainly is in 1963. Mastroianni, Lancaster, Björnstrand, Mifune and Finney would be 1-5 for sure. But beyond that, right there with Piccoli, would be the five women listed here—many of them are in multiple films that are among the year’s best. We can start with Claudia Cardinale. She’s in both The Leopard and 8 ½ with Visconti’s film being the bulk of the reason for her mention. There’s a sublime showcase of acting talents by both Cardinale and Lancaster as they dance together near the end of the film. The next two are the Sweds: Ingrid Thulin and Gunnel Lindblom. They are both in both The Silence and Winter Light. Thulin, in particular, as Marta in Winter Light, is worthy of praise here. Lastly, Anouk Aimée and Sandra Milo both give small, but lasting performances in 8 ½. Mastroianni’s Guido is sort of our tour guide for Fellini’s world—a passive (again, brilliant) performance- so there are plenty of moments for the ensemble cast to shine.

Claudia Cardinale in both Visconti’s The Leopard (where she manages to steal scenes from Lancaster) and a brief role in Fellini’s 8 1/2

another big year for the Bergman trope of actors- Ingrid Thulin and Gunnel Lindblom in The Silence

a great pair of shots from the Swedish auteur
top 10
- 8 ½
- High and Low
- The Leopard
- Contempt
- Winter Light
- The Birds
- The Silence
- Tom Jones
- The Haunting
- Charade

a stunning matte painting or matte shot from Hitchcock’s The Birds

Samuel Fuller’s Shock Corridor– a film just missing the top 10 of the year list

another here- Paul Newman and Brandon De Wilde in Martin Ritt’s Hud

a gorgeous shot from Robert Wise’s The Haunting

from Joseph Losey’s The Servant
Archives, Directors, and Grades
55 Days at Peking- N. Ray | R |
8 1/2- Fellini | MP |
America, America- Kazan | R |
An Actor’s Revenge – Ichikawa | R |
Bay of Angels- Demy | R |
Black Sabbath – Bava | R |
Charade- Donen | HR |
Cleopatra – Mankiewicz | R |
Contempt- Godard | MP |
From Russia With Love – Young | R |
High and Low – Kurosawa | MP |
Hud- Ritt | HR |
It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World- Kramer | R |
Jason and the Argonauts – Chaffey | R |
Lilies of the Field- Nelson | R |
Muriel, or the Time of Return – Resnais | R |
Shock Corridor – Fuller | HR |
The Big City – S. Ray | R |
The Birds- Hitchcock | MS |
The Fire Within- Malle | HR |
The Great Escape- J. Sturges | |
The Haunting- Wise | HR |
The Insect Woman – Imamura | HR |
The Leopard – Visconti | MP |
The Lord of the Flies – Brook | R |
The Nutty Professor- Jer. Lewis | HR |
The Organizer- Monicelli | R |
The Pink Panther- Edwards | R |
The Servant- Losey | HR |
The Silence- Bergman | MS |
This Sporting Life- L. Anderson | R |
Tom Jones – T. Richardson | MS |
Winter Light- Bergman | MS/MP |
Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow- De Sica | R |
*MP is Masterpiece- top 1-3 quality of the year film
MS is Must-See- top 5-6 quality of the year film
HR is Highly Recommend- top 10 quality of the year film
R is Recommend- outside the top 10 of the year quality film but still in the archives
I just saw Winter Light today.
Probably one of the only truly perfect films I have ever seen and I only feel that way about 10-15 films. It’s definitely not as high as 10-15 on my rankings but there are literally no flaws in the film. It’s a brilliant character study with terrific acting.
The scene where Pastor Ericcson and one of his church members talk about the silence of Jesus is one of the best scenes I have ever seen.
The sun coming through windows is beautiful photography.
MP in my opinion.
You don’t have a separate page for Winter Light. What are your thoughts on the film?
He writes about it on the Bergman director page. Lists it as Bergman’s most underrated and #263 of all time.
I began my centenary Mifune study (which will probably expand into a full-blown exhaustive Kurosawa study when it’s all said and done) somewhat askew from the center of the bullseye by diving into their four crime film/noir works: Drunken Angel (1948), Stray Dog (1949), The Bad Sleep Well (1960), and High and Low (1963). I think they’re all worthy of discussion/debate but let me know if you think that would be better done on the site or via private correspondence. That said, we need to talk about High and Low.
Obviously 8 1/2 is an utterly unassailable choice for #1 of the year… it might be the best movie ever made. However, to my view you are severely underrating Kurosawa’s film which is not only a towering masterpiece, but also stands shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Chinatown, Touch of Evil, The Third Man, or Pulp Fiction as one of the absolute greatest crime films ever made. The first hour at the Gondo home is a masterclass in mise-en-scene featuring some of the most remarkable blocking and compostion you’ll find in any film, ever, in addition to being a rich and entralling morality play in miniature headlined by a jawdropping, titanic Mifune performance.
Then when they finally leave that remarkable set, the film (if possible) gets even better, evolving into a riveting police procedural while sacrificing none of the earlier compositional rigour. The train sequence, the investigation, the cuts to the kidnapper… all of it is note perfect culminating in the stunning composition at the Gondo window with the pink smoke in the distance. Then the extended sting operation that follows the kidnapper from the jazz club, to the poverty ridden addicts district, to the eventual confrontation, is astonishing filmmaking. And then the ending… just an all-timer of an ending.
This one demands reappraisal!
I 2nd youd opinion. High and low is a brilliant movie. Easily one of Kurosawa and Mifunes best. Very intriguing crime movie.
What are some of your favorite Kurosawa movies?
I think High and Low would be a strong MS on the basis of its brilliant narrative and themes alone even if it were flatly directed by a total journeyman. Instead, Kurosawa conducts a visual symphony and delivers what is, to my estimation, one of the greatest ever films of its genre… or any other.
As to your question, Seven Samurai is my choice for the greatest film ever, but Kurosawa has multiple other films (including, I am now convinced, High and Low) that are right there as well. I just started a Mifune study that will ultimately be a Kurosawa study so that I can iron out precisely how each of the films stack up.
After you complete your study I would really like to know your rankings/opions on Kurosawa’s movies. High and Low has always been a MS/MP for me though upon revisiting it, I am sure it will be near to a masterpiece. Since Samurai is your favorite movie, I am sure your study will be very in depth and it will take a lot of time and effort. I’ll be glad to hear your thoughts and updated rankings if you choose to share them.
@Azman I adore Ikiru and agree that it is a Masterpiece, one of two I have Kurosawa directing without Mifune (the other being Ran). It has been 8 years since I’ve seen it, but I look forward to returning to it now once I expand my study beyond the Mifune films. Unless I’m mistaken, I believe it was Ebert’s favourite Kurosawa.
Ebert mentioned (before he submitted his final top 10 in 2012), “I decided not to do that–trash the 2002 list and start again. It was too much like a stunt. Lists are ridiculous, but if you’re going to vote, you have to play the game. Besides, the thought of starting with a blank page and a list of all the films ever made fills me with despair.”
He also said:
“The older I grow and the more I observe how age affects our relationships, the more I think “Tokyo Story” has to teach us. Kurosawa’s “Ikiru” has as much to say, but in the rigid economy of the Sight & Sound limitations, impossible choices are forced.”
Basically, he was saying that list making is near impossible and he was forced to choose Tokyo Story in his top 10 over Ikiru. So basically, Ikiru was almost in his top 10…
Ikiru is probably also my favorite Kurosawa :), followed by probably high and low and then 7 samurai. But i don’t like to rank movies as such. These are 3 Kurosawa movies I would strongly recommend to any cinephile. The acting is great and so is the direction amongst many other things.
Damn, Cardinale had an amazing year, she’s in the top two movies of the year, but not even she is mentioned, her role at 8 ½ is very small but she kills every scene she is in.
I think she deserves to be mentioned
Bergman is amazing, he is so productive, do you mention in trend that it is the year of Fellini, when you update the page will it still be the year of Fellini? because as they mention The silence and winter light are from 1963, two of the best of the year.
I also caught the silence a few days ago, I mentioned earlier that Cardinale should get a mention, but came to the conclusion that Ingrid Thulin gives the best performance of the year, what you think? she is phenomenal in both
@Aldo i agree bergman was a master filmmaker and very productive. seventh seal is one of my favorite films because its narrative, religious nature, acting, writing and visuals. anyways, here’s a question for you. if you were a director would you want to be a super prolific director like spielberg, scorsese or griffith, fassbinder. or someone like george lucas, leone, coppola or kubrick who barely releases content but when they do you can accept something great (not always with lucas).
With all due respect to the inimitable Ingmar Bergman and his two tremendous contributions to 1963, 8 1/2 might be the greatest film ever made, and it narrowly squeezes out the top spot over the perfect brilliance of High and Low. That’s the story of the year. Bergman and Godard provide the year’s scintillating B-plots. That’s the early 1960s for you.
@Matt Harris. How would your top 10 be?
Here mine so far
1. 8 ½
2. The leopard
3. High and low
4. Contempt
5. Winter light
6. The birds
7. The silence
8. Tom jones
The day Drake does a review of 8 ½
i would like you to leave your thoughts, as you do with Kurosawa, you are a good writer.
@m I would rather be super prolific, i really admire Bergman for that, there are directors who despair of the eternity that it takes to make a new movie, my god, Malick took 20 years between Days of Heaven and the thin red line, Kubrick 13
@Aldo i agree. i’d rather be prolific because i’d have so many ideas to explore i wouldn’t want to wait years. actually once i graduate high school and go to college i want to go to a film school not just for learning technique but to learn formally in film history. probably an obscure film school not a big one like ucla, because i’d prefer to go to a film school where the few people in the class are all very passionate. anyways, has anyone in this site been to film school. i think i may have asked this question before but couldn’t find the answer. has anyone on this site made any films, amateur or whatever.
I don’t think anyone has seen your comment yet.
I’m actually going to go to university and i don’t know whether to study a career or in a film school.
I would try to make a movie, if it weren’t because cameras cost one eye of the face, it would be interesting to hear if anyone has made a movie
@Aldo, My advice would be: just make your own movie man
The best education in film isn’t to watch many movies or go to film school (though that certainly helps a bit). However, ” The best education in film is to make one”- Kubrick.
If you really are interested, write a script, borrow a camera or use a phone, get your parents or friends to act and go out and shoot a short film. You can use a storyboarding sheet to plan your ideas and shots/ shot types and look at videos on youtube about tracking shots etc. You can shot outdoors (like Barry Lyndon) or indoors (like 2001).
After you’re done making your movie, you should use a free editing software to edit your film.
Trust me, shooting a movie is fun, but editing is even better. When you see your entire movie edited together with a soundtrack, it’s oddly satisfying.
There’s so much you can do in film in universities. You can do history (which helps you learn about film History), writing (novel writing, screenwriting), drama (film and theatre), film studies (the history of film and cinematic techniques and direction) and there are even film scoring (music) classes. It all depends on what you want to be.
Lastly, if you want to ‘study a different career’ or purse a different profession, you could always so a major in other field and a minor in film studies.
Hi Azman, always nice to read your comments, yes, i really don’t think it’s important to go to school to learn, i would make a movie right now, but like i said i don’t have a camera haha, i really prefer not to do anything if it is with a cell phone, it seems a sin to me.
You should share your movie, i said if I make one i would show it to Drake, i like your idea and i know how to edit, but like i said the camera, well i really say about studying a different career in case i’m not good for it haha
@Aldo @Azman thank you for the input. i guess i disagree with what you that someone should just make a movie. well i agree and disagree. i think that would be fun and a great experience, but if you have more of an ambition to make movies people will see and discuss it is vital i think to know the artform. also, aldo is right, it is blasphemy to shoot on a cellphone (looking at you, Sean Faker). also i feel like i want to shoot films when i am more experienced in my life, i think that coming up with an aesthetic and learning the great movies of the past is what i should do before i start shooting. plus i want to shoot on film, i always dream of holding and cutting a strip of celluloid. also azman, it sounds like you’ve shot films. it would be great if you could possibly share them on this site.
@M and @Aldo, I will look for the films. Nowadays, certain expensive cell phones have incredible camera quality. They even have A.I to adjust lighting etc. Of course it’s secondary to actually having a camera and a ‘dolly stand’ but if you really, really, really want to, you could use a high quality phone just to practice photography and camera shots. You don’t actually have to make a professional movie just a few shots here and there that you can edit together.
Jafar Panahi was stuck in his home, with no camera and no place to shoot a movie. He lived under strict censorship laws where he lived in Iran and he was placed under house arrest. He didn’t even have much money. Yet he used his phone(yes, his cellphone) to shoot and create an extremely powerful docufilm which is the 1292nd best film of all time according to TSPDT and among the top 130 films of the 21st century.
@M, yes you have to be knowledge about film. You need to have seen a few films – yes. This is common sense.
But you’re never actually going to know how to shoot a film unless you actually go out with a camera and do it. Kubrick agrees with me.
I need to read about how to drive a car, the different techniques and tools involved. This is important knowledge. But unless I actually practice driving (in a car), I’ll never truly know how to drive a car. The experience is very valuable. I can read a book about how to swim. But unless I actually swim, I’ll never truly gain the experience/skills required. Same with filmmaking in my (and Kubrick’s )opinion.
Azman, I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but it’s not the same, can you imagine what David Lean would think if i recorded with a phone? I have a camera for photos and the difference between the cell phone and the camera is big, now i imagine on video, there is a reason why they don’t make movies with cell phones, i guess it’s a documentary
I agree with what you mention, you learn a lot from movies, there are many good filmmakers who did not go to film schools.
To end my comment, you will share your movie or no?
It would have been great if you put up an image of Hitchcock’s Birds. It’s a great film.
@Malith- yeah I thought I had one– let me check
@Malith- thank you for the help here cleaning up the errors
Isn’t Charade the last archivable film for Cary Grant? It should be mentioned.
@Malith– I don’t always do the last archiveable film
I’ve also wondered if Kurosawa’s run in the 60s out did his work from the 50s and it’s a legitimate position to take. I actually consider High and Low to be his 2nd best after Seven Samurai. And I still have to see Red Beard.
Who do you think had a stronger decade between Kurosawa and Antonioni?
@James Trapp… haven’t thought about it until now– both incredible decades- here’s how they line up so just by the math I guess I’d take Antonioni
1960- L’Avventura MP
1961- La Notte MS/MP
1962- The Eclipse MP
1964- Red Desert MP
1966- Blow-Up MS/MP
1960 The Bad Sleep Well MP
1961- Yojimbo MS/MP
1962- Sanjuro MS
1963- High and Low MP
1965- Red Beard HR
Yeah, it’s close for me. Like I said I still need to watch Red Beard, probably get to it soon. But the rest I’m good with although I think Yojimbo is a clear cut MP and La Notte a MS but I guess I’m nitpicking. Red Desert has really grown on me, watched it in a film course in college and it didn’t do much for me but watched it again a couple years ago and I was blown away by it’s use of color. Plus I love movies that have a hypotonic feel to them as Red Desert so clearly does.
Btw does this mean Antonioni’ is the director of the decade? I guess it would be between with and Fellini right?
@James Trapp- hmm- yeah when I did my top 250 directors I didn’t break it down by decade— but Godard, Truffaut, Fellini have to be in the mix with three masterpieces each… Leone as well with Once Upon a Time in the West and the entire Man with No Name trilogy
great review the number one is indisputable there is not much to say on this subject which has not been said millions of times already. but your high and low analysis is really inspiring i am an absolute kurosawa fan but yet you made me want to watch the film again. I also like winter light at the 5th position it’s a great film. to answer @james trapp’s question I agree with you of course that if we base this only on the 60s work antonioni is superior to kurosawa the 60s are by far the golden age of antonioni if kurosawa was better with his 60s work that would mean that antonioni is an ant compared to kurosawa but it’s a good thing to highlight the work of kurosawa in the 60s which is largely underestimated compared to the 50s even if I think all the same that his 50s work is clearly superior (seven samurai, rashomon and ikiru are 3 immense masterpieces). come back to the comparison between kurosawa and antonioni of course if we compare the whole career and put in the balance rashomon, ikiru, seven samurai, stray dog, throne of blood, dersu uzala and ran kurosawa is for me clearly superior to antonioni ( the only masterpiece made by antonioni out of the 60s is profession reporter).last thing i want to say @drake you should give maybe another chance at red beard it’s truly an incredible movie
I could say that Coppola did not make any masterpieces outside the 70s, since critics hate Rumble fish, but that should not influence anything, if a director made his best films in a decade and then in none that does not matter, it is a statistical data, too you can include Godard here.
I agree that the time span of when a director’s masterpieces are released is not all that important in the end since at the end of the day the number and quality of their MPs is what counts, whether they are condensed such as Godard (1960-1967) Antonioni (1960-1966, 1975) or spread out such as Scorsese (1976, 1980, 1990, 1995 – yes Casino is a MP and possibly the Irishman as well, 2019) or someone like Kubrick whose first MP was 1957 – Paths of Glory and final was 1999 – Eyes Wide Shut
Nice page, although i must admit that you seem to be more focused on High and Low. Couldn’t you find 8 ½ screenshots?
It’s probably just me, but the performance of the year is Lancaster in the leopard, one of the best meditations on mortality in the history of cinema, played wonderfully by “the leopard in decline”.
I’m glad you took Cardinale’s inclusion into account, did you read the recommendation to include Thulin that i left months ago (but you didn’t answer)?
I must say that i am dismayed and upset by the lack of appreciation of actresses on this site it’s alarming, the actors page has 343 comments, while the actresses only 84, i seem to be the only one on this site paying attention, the fact that no one has commented on Thulin’s absence shows my point, however, you should include Thulin on your list, she has an excellent resume.
Co-leader in Wild Strawberries
Co-leader in Winter Light
Protagonist in The silence
Co-leader in Cries and whispers.
Hour of the wolf.
I’m not going to include movies that i haven’t seen, but from what i know, she worked with Visconti.
@Aldo- haha yeah there are plenty of 8 1/2 screenshots out there- I have 2 here. Is there one you think I’m missing? I have it above High and Low but I’m not sure 8 1/2 wants to get into a screengrab contest with the Kurosawa film.
I do remember reading the Thulin suggestion. Thank you
Some great 8 1/2 shots you omitted include:
https://366weirdmovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/8_1_2.jpg
https://deepfocusreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/81.2.7.jpg
https://extralifereviews.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/8-1-2-set.jpg
@Graham– good stuff- thank you– looked at all 3 and more. Some very fine imagery- I just had to have a cutoff at some point.
I also love the one that inspired the Mia and Vincent dance in Pulp Fiction; Drake has it on Fellini’s page.
I believe the one you are referring to is on this page. It is the first image below the “Best Film” paragraph.
@Graham – Yes, you are right. Forgot it was there.
I mean it, after seeing it, i reject the idea that 8½ would lose in a screengrab battle, 8½ would win, obviously you are focusing on different things, but you omitted tons of incredible images, like the tower piece set (I don’t expect you to put all the images)
@Aldo- ok, but walking out of 8 1/2 on the big screen might not be the ideal time to objectively look at this
My choice of female acting would be Thulin, as i mentioned she is leading and co-leader on two masterpieces.
I mentioned it the same many months ago, but i am absolutely amazed at Bergman, the fact that again deliver two masterpieces in one year, incredible, there is any other director who has made two masterpieces and even so it is not the best movie of the year (and he even had a year where he made two that were the best)?
I think the only other is Fleming, i hesitate to say Fleming because he did not fully direct GWTW, who do you think deserves most of the credit for the movie?
You’ve studied these directors better than i have, so i don’t know.
@Aldo- I really can’t say- except for Fleming doesn’t deserve the same level of credit as Bergman does for his films if that makes sense.
I really thought you could answer this one. So you think it is a collaborative work? or is it Cukor, Fleming or Sam Wood?
@Aldo- so I’ve read a biography on Selznick – this one https://www.amazon.com/Showman-Life-David-Selznick/dp/0394568338 very good. Someone else can chime in but if you’re looking for who deserves credit for directing Gone With the Wind it is my understanding that it is a little bit of Fleming, a little bit of Cukor, and a little bit of Selznick (hence my point about nobody being as much in charge as Bergman was of his films) If you’ve ever seen
Duel in the Sun (also produced by Selznick) I think it makes a pretty decent case for Selznick as well
I do not have a problem here, just curious, i am not one of those who get heavy on this issue (there are people who do)
Why do you have Vivre sa vie in its original title but with the other Godard films you have them in English, here you have Le mepris as Contempt and
A bout de souffle as Breathless.
You seem to alternate, why didn’t you put My Life to Live (title in English) or vice versa?
@Aldo- haha I actually have thought about this over the years. For the most part I just follow IMDB– these new (to me) Duvivier films, or Guru Dutt- I’m just putting what IMDB has- they are new to me. Case in point with Godard https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000419/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0#director but some of these I’ve lived with for 20+ years now so it is just hard for me to change once I know a film a certain way
Vivre Sa Vie just has a nice ring to it ha. Sounds cooler than Le Mepris, not very scientific I know
I like the 400 Blows as well, Les Quatre Cents Coups
I love Hitchcock’s The Birds
Here’s an interesting read that hypothesizes that The Birds, being made in 63 near the Height of Cold War paranoia could be viewed symbolically with the birds in the film representing a nuclear attack where innocent people are held powerless by attacks that happen spontaneously. I know that the film is an adaptation and perhaps the original author did not intent for that to be an interpretation. None the less an interesting read here is the article for anyone who wants to check it out:
https://www.firstpost.com/bollywood/horror-most-profound-the-many-layers-to-alfred-hitchcocks-classic-the-birds-2717598.html
Of all Hitchcock’s movies this has always been one of my favorites, I enjoy there not being a typical villain or an innocent man on the run (although those are great as well) in this film the characters have to deal with a force of nature they don’t fully comprehend.
@James Trapp- I just read the article-I loved it- appreciate you sending that on.
Drake,
Have you seen Pale Flower? It’s actually a 1964 film but I was curious as I
can’t find the 1964 page.
This is tangential to your question but Drake purges the pages a few years ahead of each new post to prepare for the redo of each year.
I believe that the years immediately following the most recently updated ones are typically unlisted on the site while Drake is editing them. That’s probably why you can’t find 1964.
@James Trapp- I have not yet seen Pale Flower- Azman mentioned it last summer as well. I have been meaning to get to it– I just haven’t yet. And yes- currently the pages for 1964-1968 are being redone and will be back soon
Ok, sounds good, I just watched on Criterion Channel and would definitely recommend, very cool/stylish movie. Main character has a bit of a nihilist streak in a Godard like way crossed with a setting in the seedy under world circa 1960s Japan (Imamura like)
I believe Tatsuya Nakadai deserves a mention for his performance in High and Low. I think it is arguably a greater work of acting than Mifune’s also brilliant performance in the film, though Mifune is the better actor.
For years I thought Charade (1963) was directed by Hitchcock. Apparently it was been called “the best Hitchcock movie not directed by Hitchcock” or something to that effect. Maybe it’s the cover, which resembles Vertigo or the casting of Cary Grant or the subject matter; or some combination of all 3.
It got me thinking, are there any films that are frequently mistaken for being directed by someone else?
@James Trapp- interesting- The 1951 The Thing with Howard Hawks and Spielberg on Poltergeist are two that always get associated with those producers. This is different than your example with Charade where Hitchcock wasn’t connected at all. This isn’t where you are going either but I stumbled upon this and found this interesting- https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/11-movies-that-might-have-been-directed-by-someone-else/
@Drake – interesting read, yeah there are certainly many examples where people incorrectly credit a film’s writer/producer/actors as the director. Much harder to find examples like the Charade and Hitchcock. But there are sub category’s of his concept. For example, many people are shocked to discover that American Psycho (2000) was directed by a female director, Mary Harron, although they aren’t necessarily misattributing it to any particular director. When I was much younger, like 13 or so I thought Martin Scorsese directed A Bronx Tale (1993) and was suprised when I later discovered it was actually directed by De Niro but I don’t think this is a common believe.
@James Trapp- I’m pretty sure I felt the same way about A Bronx Tale! I’m sure many made the same mistake.
@Drake – that’s funny, but yeah there are some obvious similarties with Goodfellas:
1. You have the early scenes with the main characters when they were young, and just as “C”
is mentored by the Chazz Palminteri character, Sonny, and the other neighborhood wise
guy just as the young Henry Hill is mentored by the neighborhood wise guys.
2. Both introduce all the funny/eccentric/ etc. neighborhood characters are their hilarious
nicknames
3. De Niro is in both as an actor although the characters he plays couldn’t be more different
4. The NYC setting, although A Bronx Tale is more specific about the area, hence the title
I’m sure there’s others, but those are a few similarities
@Drake – Three Billboards (2017) was directed by Martin McDonagh but I’ve talked to some people who thought it was a Coen Brothers film, I can see why; between Frances McDormant having the lead role and the Coen Brothers style mix of dark comedy and drama not to mention the strong regional ties as Coen Brother’s films seem to emphasize regional details such as characters with distinct accents.
At one I thought Steven Speilberg directed Forrest Gump, again when I was a kid, but not sure this is a common belief.
@James Trapp- good calls here- two more good ones- certainly films like Magnolia made in the Altman style. Paddington 2 could’ve been directed by Wes Anderson- I never confused these but could see that happening as some of our great filmmakers are obviously very influential to both their peers and the next generation
Really cool read I found spotlighting all the uses of matte painting in The Birds, some of these are just incredible. I bought the 4K today so am exciting to revisit.
http://singlemindedmovieblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-matte-paintings-of-birds.html