Cukor. Even without any credit for Gone With the Wind George Cukor’s filmography alone is deserving of this slot. He’s not a style-plus director and his contribution to Gone With the Wind is of much debate (it’s clear he directed some of the best scenes but how much was actually directed by Selznick and how much was directed by Victor Fleming is still relatively unclear) but he did give us 19 archiveable films over a period of 32 years. Cukor was not just at the helm for some great Hollywood films- there is a real consistency in his work both with

The Dardenne Brothers. There is nobody in Hollywood, indie cinema or around the globe that can match the Dardenne’s realism work since the mid 90s. They exploded on the scene 1996 with La Promesse and they now have a stellar 5 films that have landed in the top 100 of their respective decade. Two top 500 all-time films is impressive, but the consistency of their work, the Dardenne trademark (social realism, allegorical grittiness, handheld cameras—a cinema verite style) is what puts them past others with a similar quality filmography. There’s a dedication in their aesthetic. Their films are not overly

Capra. Capra is a style-minus director but has a brilliant filmography (his filmography grades out to be ranked 60th as a director) and unlike others like Huston or Curtiz or some others his great films have a definite consistent ethos and Capra trademark. He will, no doubt, be passed by others and will eventually fall out of the top 100 but the quality and consistency is still worthy of praise. His 7 films in the top 100 of their respective decade (and 5 in the 30’s) is really notable.   a great use of the frame here in Mr.

Sofia Coppola. Coppola has given us one of the best films of the 2000s decade and five of her six films have landed in the top 100 of their respective decade. She’s yet another one of the directors that critics decry as “style over substance”. Because of that- Sofia is now dreadfully underrated by the critical consensus. She’s a style-plus director with her own trademark visual style, consistent themes, who makes films of painterly splendor. Specifically, her first three films (The Virgin Suicides, Lost in Translation, Marie Antoinette) make for a remarkable start to a career as an auteur.

Chaplin. Chaplin’s filmography suggests a much better fate than where I’ve got him at here– sitting at #80.  . I’m lower on most of his films than the TSPDT consensus so that’s one thing. Even so, I would have him rated as #30 if I were just using my filmography points system (TSPDT has Chaplin as the #15 rated director of all-time—which I find to be preposterous). He’s clearly a style-minus director- one of, if not the overall lowest on this list. As I’ve said and hinted at before he’s clearly one of the 5-10 greatest screen performers/actors of

Eastwood. Eastwood’s filmography is stronger than he is as a stylistic director. Still—at slot #79 here—we have a director with 4 films in the top 500 with similarities in the visual design and persistent narrative themes.  It’s tough to reconcile just how different his films from a color palette standpoint in the 20thcentury look from his films in the 21st century but I think this is a good spot for him. In both eras he made beautiful films (Unforgiven is incredibly striking and his color/lighting scheme in the early 2000’s is impressive). He has a ton of archiveable films (17)--

Cameron.  Cameron is a tricky one for me because he only has 7 archiveable films and doesn’t have a big glaring heavyweight masterpiece. Usually someone like that wouldn’t make my top 100 director list. However, he already has 4 films in the top 500 which is really high this far down. These 4 films, with Avatar (which isn’t eligible yet) are an indelible part of cinema these past 35+ years. As to Cameron’s qualifications as a director- he blurs the line between technical achievement and stylistic achievement. I don’t care so much for the former but there’s plenty of

Nicholas Ray. “The cinema is Nicholas Ray” is Godard’s famous, fabulously superior statement. It has been met with a good deal of ridicule over the years, and for good reason. He’s not one of the best directors of all-time like the Cashiers’ critics thought but there’s no doubt he was overlooked and underappreciated in Hollywood (as they claimed). Many of Ray’s films are really uneven but they are almost all directed with great vitality and have loud imagery. His strengths are the 3 films in the top 500 of all-time—and They Live By Night (an incredible debut) isn’t far

Cassavetes. Cassavetes not only has 2 top 500 films but is rightly known as grand forerunner of independent American cinema. His films have a definite atmosphere and authenticity about them that isn’t just a stagey showcase for actors. Cassavetes, as auteur, gets credit for that look and atmosphere- it’s very anti-Hollywood. He not only sets the tone for future independent cinema (both the good and bad traits of) that still lingers today but is truly one of the great actors turned directors. I wish I thought more of his oeuvre after his two top films (Faces is really good but Husbands and

Von Stroheim. Before I get going- I love that he added his own “von” to his name to make himself sound more distinguished and aristocratic. Haha.  For a silent director, von Stroheim had a limited output (though his per-average film quality was very high- he made 6 of the top 75 movies of the 1910’s and 20’s—dominant!) and it wasn’t cut short by an early death in his case- but by forced retirement basically from studio interference (they banished him for going over budget) and his unwillingness to compromise or negotiate his artistic integrity. He was an actor and

Pakula.  Pakula was on absolute fire from 1971 to 1976 with this unofficial paranoia trilogy and then we’re largely done—unlike Coppola, Scorsese, Spielberg and others American filmmakers that emerged during that incredibly fertile period in American cinema-- there’s no second act here for Pakula. Those three films though—Kluke, The Parallax View, and All the President’s Men- are immaculately crafted and are consistent so let’s appreciate what we have. They are clearly the work of an artist. He’s a style-plus director (very easy to discuss below in that section) even if his filmography, specifically the depth beyond those top 3

Keaton. Keaton is the silent set-piece master of comedy (at least until Tati made Playtime). He’s ahead of Chaplin despite Chaplin having the better filmography as it grades out). The use of the locomotive (The General) and the movie screen (Sherlock Jr.) as a set-piece is an inventiveness that deserves recognition. Keaton dominated the top 100 of the combined 1910’s and 20’s list with a whopping 7 total films. One thing that makes it difficult to grade out Keaton as an auteur is its’s hard to attribute the direction of the films to Keaton. TSPDT does and that’s great.