Haynes. Todd Haynes has a very worthy entry in the top 100 of the decade in the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s. He’s a master of production design (often oppressive beauty/suburbia) whose work is part of the proud lineage in the melodrama genre that can be traced back from Douglas Sirk to RW Fassbinder to Almodovar. His weakness is that when he’s not staying in this genre and mode of film (Safe, Carol, Far From Heaven), he tends to stumble a little --his other four archiveable films don’t come terribly close to the top 100 of their decade. Best film:

Resnais. Alain Resnais may have been more influential than he is accomplished. I hope another study of his work proves me wrong. Resnais does not have a top 500 film of all-time and there are plenty of directors that do at this point so that’s a weakness. However, the level of authorship in his films certainly trumps someone like Robert Wise or like Leo McCarey and the 3 films that rank in the top 100 of their respective decade is a strength at this point this far down the list. I’ll get to it more below in stylistic traits

Ashby. Ashby is an important figure in the American New Wave of the 1970’s or the “New Hollywood”. Look at his seven first films below, an extraordinary run, and he stays in the decade. He would pass away in the 1980’s at a young age (59) and had some issues before that essentially stopped his streak—but these are justifiably iconic films. For the purposes of this list he’s hurt by the fact that only one of his seven films landed in the top 100 of the 1970’s (though 4-5 others are between 101-150 I’d guess). He came up as

Leigh. I did some of the metrics for my project here before I did a thorough Mike Leigh study from November 2019 to January 2020. Leigh’s place will change over time but I couldn’t put anyone else ahead of him on this list—I was so thoroughly impressed with his work.  For the purposes of this list his 12 archiveable films all bear his recognizable stamps of authorship. That is deep body of work. Naked is one of the best films of the 1990’s and Mr. Turner absolutely blew me away when I got to it a second time recently.

Browning. Tod Browning, after Gus Van Sant, is the second director to make the list without a top 500 film. For the consensus critics list (I’ll get to it more below) - that film is Freaks. I’ve seen it- multiple times, just don’t think it’s on that level and I believe the consensus to be incorrect. Browning’s case is that that all of his six film in the archives below (especially the top five) bare his stamp of authorship. It’s so rare and refreshing in the 1930’s and 1940’s Hollywood system to see an auteur making unapologetically one-person driven

Davies. Terence Davies delivers the harsh realities of life in a swooningingly lyrical style. His resume includes a top 500 film, 3 films in the top 100 of their respective decade (and The Long Day Closes and The House of Mirth aren’t far off from making it 5). Davies makes clear and consistent aesthetic choices as well.  He makes period films that feel like they’re evoked reminiscences rather than reality (even though they are often dismal and dark). There is a vintage crisp photography and immaculate mise-en-scene staging with each film. Best film: Distant Voices, Still Lives. Still his

Kiarostami. Abbas Kiarostami is an accomplished auteur and worthy acolyte of the cinematic realists. If you roughly break down the auteurs by those that are grounded in realism, and those grounded in exresspionism—again—he’s an important figure in the former category. His dedication to what is authentic has been cause for genre/categorization discussions/debates over the years as much of his docudramas—are—really—documentaries (or a composite of the two). This makes it tough for me as I do not watch and study documentaries (I studied them in college and found far too often they were subject/agenda-driven in their goal and ambitions instead

Van Sant.  So Gus Van Sant is the first auteur on my list not to have a top 500 film. They (top 500 films that haven’t had their director mentioned by my previous 135 directors on this list) are getting rarer and rarer. But Van Sant’s case is still strong because he has 3 films that land in the top 100 of their respective decade (also getting rarer) and all three of Van Sant’s 3 top 100 of the decade films are at least 10 years old (I have that 10 year moratorium so everything 2009/2010 and newer doesn’t

Mendes.  Few modern auteurs have a resume that includes the 1-2 punch of American Beauty and The Road to Perdition and can (with confidence) boast that they’ve made the best James Bond film (it is right there with Goldfinger). Jarhead and Revolutionary Road (as evidenced below) are far from misses as well. His work may be a little less authorial distinct than some of his peers (like a Lynn Ramsay who I’ll be getting to shortly on this list) but he has 1 top 500 film, 3 films that are in the top 100 of their decade, and makes

Schrader. Somewhat sadly, Paul Schrader is probably first thought of as the screenwriter for Scorsese’s Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and to a lesser extent, Bringing out the Dead. He’s a masterful auteur though and has 9 films in the archives and counting (one of his strongest entries came in 2017) with 1 film in the top 200 of all-time and another 4 that just barely miss the top 100 of their respective decade. Still- for the purposes of this list, having only 1 film in the top 100 of their respective decade is a weakness—but Mishima is worth a

Pasolini. I’ll be the first to admit that there is work to be done here on my end regarding Pasolini. I’ve seen six Pasolini films, once a piece, between the years 2004-2006. That certainly doesn’t make me an expert (hoping to dig in further soon). As far as his resume, the 1 film in the top 500 of all-time isn’t the problem—it’s the 1 film in the top 100 of the decade that hurts his case (though Salo is very close). The strength of Pasolini’s case is level of authorship in his films. Accattone has hinds of neorealism, as