On Sep 20, 11:03 pm, Okierazorbacker
wrote:
> On Sep 20, 4:45 pm, Adam Cameron wrote:> Lists like these are such subjective things that they lack any real point
> > if one doesn't explain one's rationale, surely?
>
> > Wouldn't this be more(*) interesting if you explained WHY you listed the
> > people you did?
>
> > Or is this just an exercise in nodding knowingly and reflecting that you
> > know some names of some directors?
>
> That's a reasonable thought, and gives me an excuse to rattle on for
> awhile. Not that I know that much about the process of directing more
> than anyone else, but I type faster than most, so let me collect a few
> thoughts on my own list and the others here.
>
> eisenstein -- For me I'd consider him to belong on this level if only
> because he's been Russia's top director forever.
>
Well, if you're sense of Soviet film history ends in 1945 and you
determinedly ignore Pudovkin and Dovzhenko.
> hitchcock -- I don't care for his early movies, which strike me as
> simply quota quickies with a bit more style than most, but once he hit
> his stride he churned out masterpiece after masterpiece. Even his
> lesser later films, like "Marnie," have more going for them than most
> product of their era.
>
Marnie is NOT a lesser film. Topaze, now that's a lesser film.
> mizoguchi -- So far I've only seen "Ugetsu," so I can't comment other
> than to say that it was very, very good.
>
> imamura -- Totally unfamiliar.
>
> ichikawa -- Anime, apparently. Don't know his work.
>
You really need to start looking at Japanese cinema beyond Kurosawa.
> kurosawa -- A list of top directors without him is ridiculous.
>
> bergman -- Many would say the same about Bergman (hello, Woody?) but
> I'm not a fan. I don't think his work has aged well, but I can
> understand his place in history, so he belongs.
>
Hmmm.. Have you seen any of his work lately, or are you guessing?
> resnais -- I'm generally not a fan of French films, but haven't seen
> his work so can't comment further.
>
> dreyer -- I assume he's included almost solely for "The Passion of
> Joan of Arc," and that truly is a great one, but one film does not a
> career make. I've seen a couple of his others and wasn't impressed.
You really need to see Day OF Wrath, his witch trial film of the early
40s.
>
> fellini -- I'm also generally not a fan of Italian films, and haven't
> seen anything by Fellini that appeals to me. Again, sense of history,
> yeah, but not my cup of Diet Dr. Pepper.
Let's see, you don't like the French, you don't like the Italians, and
you're pig-ignorant on the subject of Japanese cinema.
> tarkovsky -- Haven't seen any of his work yet. So much film, so
> little time. Will get to it.
>
> kusterica -- Whom? New to me.
For someone who claims to like Eastern European films, you seem to
have some HUGE blind spots.
>
> kobayashi -- Whom? Unknown to me and to IMDb.
> > Griffith -- Haven't cared much for what of his work I've seen, but
> what he did was so important and foundational that you've got to
> include him, I guess.
>
A few years ago, I was in Santa Croce in Florence looking at the
Giotto frescoes in the Bardi Chapel, and some idiot tour guide was
telling her group that the Giottos were great because they influenced
Michelangelo, and I wanted to punch her. She had her terms backwards
-- Michelangelo was influence by the Giottos because they were great,
and Michelangelo knew it.
The trick to watching Griffith is to come at him from pre-history of
cinema, not from today. In 2K5 I decided to watch silent movies for as
long as I could, in chronological order, starting with the Lumiere
Brothers. And after about three weeks, I hit my first Griffiths -- and
understood at last why he's important. He essentially invented
narrative cinema as we still know it -- he's a paradigm shift. It's
like watching Feuillade and Lang and realizing that you are watching
the birth of the thriller as we know it.
>
> Renoir -- His '30s films that have such a great reputation leave me
> cold, but I did get a chance to see "This Land Is Mine" recently and
> loved it.
Renoir is my favorite director -- This Land is Mine is one ofthe worst
films anybody has ever made. Your fondness for it is inexplicable, but
it does explain some things about your taste.
>
> Mayazaki -- Absolutely. Greatest animation director of all time IMO.
> Will watch anything he's done, and watch most of them more than once.
>
> Peckinpah -- Another groundbreaking director. Not my favorite,
> however; "Ride the High Country" is underrated, but while I understand
> why so many love his work it's just not my bag.
>
Just out of curiosity, who underrates RideThe High Country? It's
regarded as a classic, even by people who don't like Peckinpah in
general.
> NOW MY OWN LIST:
>
> Chaplin -- Do we forget what a great director the little guy was? I
> don't. Brilliant, brilliant.
>
> Lubitsch -- Madcap fun. Any director who has a style named for him
> can't be all bad.
>
> Capra -- The Spielberg of his day. Just as watchable, usually.
>
> Cukor -- Not a flashy director, but he always got excellent
> performances from his talent and usually put out terrifically
> entertaining shows. At least until the mid '50s.
>
> Stevens -- See Cukor. His late '50s work is preferred over Cukor's,
> however, IMO.
hmmm... I'm inclined to go with Andrew Sarris on Stevens -- Before the
war, he was a minor director with major virtues, and after the war he
was a major director with minor virtues. I'll take Alice Adams and
Swingtime over all his post-war films combined.
>
> Powell -- I don't believe he ever really topped "The Edge Of the
> World." His passion for telling the story he wanted to tell, and
> getting out of the quota quickies rut, really shows there. But he was
> another one who always had some interesting subjects and his work
> looked great.
>
> Huston -- Can't believe he wasn't mentioned on other lists. I mean,
> c'mon! "The Treasure Of the Sierra Madre," "The Misfits," and "The
> African Queen" make up a triumvirate more monumental than most
> others. BIG canvas.
The problem with Huston is that for every great picture he makes about
three huge dogs, He's the dave kingman of directors.
>
> Wilder -- Exceptionally clever, witty, and more hard-hitting than most
> of his era. Always good. What other director can claim so many films
> that some of us here would list as the greatest ever made (e.g.
> "Sunset Blvd" and "Some Like it Hot")?
>
My problem with ranking Wilder on a top 30 list is the lack of any
visual style -- he's an extreme example of a writer turned director.
Occasionally there's something happening visually in his films,but
it's usually because there's a great art director in the house.
> Sturges -- Not a long career as a director, but a brief burst of
> brilliance that will last as long as any of us will live.
>
> Kazan -- His work was usually challenging for his era, and mostly
> holds up very well.
>
> Mankiewicz -- "All About Eve" and "Sleuth" stand way above the rest of
> his work, and he didn't direct even two dozen movies, but those two
> are SO good that I'd include him.
You have a fondnress for directors who have a great decade or so --
one of the qualifications for my lists were directors who made great
films across at least 20 years -- lots of directors I like are guys
with great decades -- Woody Allen, Anthony Mann -- but they tend to
slide either when the zeitgeist shifts (Allen) or when they suddenly
get promoted to the kind of vast projects that ruined Mann's career at
the end. Nicholas Ray, there's another great decade.
As to Mankiewicz, Jacques Rivette, who's about an inch off my 30, once
defined "mise-en-scene" as "What Joseph Mankiewicz's films don't
have".
>
> Lumet -- My very favorite director, although his output has been
> uneven. But for close-in work, no one directs personal stories
> better, whatever the backdrop. His closeups, tracking shots, and
> camera angles frequently take my breath away.
>
> Jewison -- Another guy who has just a fantastic range.
Yeah, he's made dreadful films in a heap of genres.
In his autobiography, he's still pissed that he didn't win the Oscar
for Jesus Christ Superstar, which means he doesn't even know what his
best work is -- he should have been pissed over not winning for In The
Heat Of The Night.
Props for The Cincinatti Kid, though.
> Bogdanovich -- A modern-day Cukor/Stevens/Wyler type. Not flashy,
> just good product and good performances.
>
> Allen -- Here's another one that I can't believe isn't on other
> lists. Yeah, he's become a bore, but throughout the '70s there were
> few better.
>
See my comments above on career length...
> Beresford -- "Breaker Morant" and "Tender Mercies." Two great movies
> that get beneath the skin of grossly imperfect characters and makes
> them earn our respect. Hit-and-miss career otherwise, mostly miss,
> but two masterpieces are better than one and rate him on the low end
> of this list.
>
> Forman -- Large-scale "personal epics" like "One Flew Over the
> Cuckoo's Nest," "Ragtime," and "Man On the Moon" are his specialty.
> He does 'em just right.
>
> Wenders -- His best work is heartbreaking. And that's a good thing.
And he hasn't made a watchable film in 20 years.
>
> Burton -- One of my faves. Outlandish and fun, great sense of the
> absurd.
>
> Hartley -- One of the few directors who can triumph in spite of
> grossly uneven acting performances. I'll watch anything he ever
> makes. We have him to thank for Adrienne Shelly, and that alone puts
> him high on my list.
>
High quirk quotient, but has he ever made a great film?
John Harkness
|