Best film director

[Ruairi Robinson]

I liked Mulholland Drive, and I agree that all those crazy editing techniques worked for the story.

I recently went back and rented Eraserhead, hoping to see the same sort of magic at work. And, boy was that a disappointment. I couldn't get through it, as there seemed to be no story whatsoever, and the entire thing was merely an exercise in annoying the audience.

I guess it was an experiment and a learning experience (for at least one person). But, I did not find it watchable (barely so at 6X speed).

Yeah, it's kind of hard to get into a story when you watch it at 6x speed.

I'm inclined not to blame the story.

R.

 

[hans de vries]

Yeah, it's kind of hard to get into a story when you watch it at 6x speed.

I'm inclined not to blame the story.

R.

:cheers2:

 

[Policar]

hehehe, thank you for your candid, and very elaborate post. I guess I never concentrated that much on camera movement. I've noticed that whenever I was most impressed by the way a movie was shot it usually meant there was hardly any camera movement at all, as in No country for old men. I have very little interest in the need for constant movement that's so clear these days. What impressed me very much in the Winky's scene was the delayed reactions of the actor's; I was less interested in the monster, which only worked for me the first few times and afterwards became rather artifical. I guess the simplicity and straightforwardness made it all the better for me.
I am sure there were some spectacular things in Raider's of the Lost Ark; I cannot get past the boyishness of the whole thing anymore

Thanks. I agree that Lynch's straightforward style is quite effective. His stories are so weird and nonlinear that he has to resort to very traditional coverage or else I think he'd lose the audience entirely. (Imagine a Lynch script directed by Tony Scott; it would be unwatchable.) Lynch's use of lighting, subjective sound, and manipulations of slight camera movement and framing are really remarkable because these are pretty subtle devices and he gets a tremendous amount out of them in otherwise conventionally shot and covered scenes. I think Lost Highway is a more interesting film than Mulholland Drive, but both are remarkable and extremely accomplished. I like Eraserhead a lot, too.

I consider Spielberg's stories to be more "childlike" than "childish" but.... That's just me. No Country for Old Men is absolutely one of the best movies in recent years and the Coens are among the best working directors; they write good scripts but they also have a remarkable and unusual command of visual language. Formally, No Country for Old Men is worth considering largely in terms of character alignment, genre conventions, and range of narration. Look at how much story information you know at a given time (compared with other characters), which characters you "follow" most in steadicam, dolly, or handheld shots, through which characters' perspectives you get the most POV shots, how this compares with other movies, etc. The first two-thirds of the film are presented essentially as a cat-and-mouse game between Chigurh and Moss, with the Coens aligning us primarily with Moss. We follow Moss the most, know about as much as he knows during moments of high suspense, and he's the most sympathetic character from whom we see the most POV shots, etc. etc. This kind of narrative slight-of-hand sets us up for a horrified and confused reaction when we learn of the the completely unexpected (off-screen!) end to his story...and the movie turns into something else entirely. But as for movies that use constant camera movement, don't dismiss them. Guerillmo del Toro uses a constantly moving camera, sometimes just to add an extra depth cue to the frame, but it's rarely overused in his films.

 

[Yousuf Abbasi]

No Country for Old Men is absolutely one of the best movies in recent years and the Coens are among the best working directors; they write good scripts but they also have a remarkable and unusual command of visual language. Formally, No Country for Old Men is worth considering largely in terms of character alignment, genre conventions, and range of narration. Look at how much story information you know at a given time (compared with other characters), which characters you "follow" most in steadicam, dolly, or handheld shots, through which characters' perspectives you get the most POV shots, how this compares with other movies, etc. The first two-thirds of the film are presented essentially as a cat-and-mouse game between Chigurh and Moss, with the Coens aligning us primarily with Moss. We follow Moss the most, know about as much as he knows during moments of high suspense, and he's the most sympathetic character from whom we see the most POV shots, etc. etc. This kind of narrative slight-of-hand sets us up for a horrified and confused reaction when we learn of the the completely unexpected (off-screen!) end to his story...and the movie turns into something else entirely. But as for movies that use constant camera movement, don't dismiss them. Guerillmo del Toro uses a constantly moving camera, sometimes just to add an extra depth cue to the frame, but it's rarely overused in his films.

Great film indeed, but I thought it was pretty parallel to Fargo in terms of how the story was told and movie unfolded.

 

[Jacek Szwarc-Bronikowski]

Peter Kubelka, Paul Sharits, Owen Land, Ken Jacobs, Jack Smith,
Kenneth Anger, Ron Rice, Robert Breer, Ed Emshwiller, Maya Deren,
Stan Brakhage, Bruce Conner, George Kuchar, Harry Smith, Jim Davis,
Stan Van Der Beek, Andy Warhol, Ralph Steiner, Michael Snow,
Len Lay, Jordan Belson, James Whitney, Matthew Barney...

 

[Jacek Szwarc-Bronikowski]

...and of course : Eisenstein, Vertov, Bergman, Felini, Visconti,
Pasolini, Antonioni, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Kurosawa etc.etc.etc...

 

[Jacek Szwarc-Bronikowski]

Almost forgot : Arthur Lipsett !

 

[Emanuel A.]

LOL. You are right. How could we forget Serguei Eisenstein and Dziga Vertov?! Unforgiveable.

 

[Joe G.]

"Yeah, it's kind of hard to get into a story when you watch it at 6x speed.

I'm inclined not to blame the story."

And what "story" would that be?

The film was visual gibberish.

6x came out of utter frustration with the lack of story. If you can understand the point and comment cogently do so.

 

[Peter Strietmann]

Some one who may have been overlooked is Luis Buñuel. Early adopter of special effects.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Right, Luis Buñuel is one of the greatest movie directors that you can constantly learn from his films and also from his life...

 

[hans de vries]

Peter Kubelka, Paul Sharits, Owen Land, Ken Jacobs, Jack Smith,
Kenneth Anger, Ron Rice, Robert Breer, Ed Emshwiller, Maya Deren,
Stan Brakhage, Bruce Conner, George Kuchar, Harry Smith, Jim Davis,
Stan Van Der Beek, Andy Warhol, Ralph Steiner, Michael Snow,
Len Lay, Jordan Belson, James Whitney, Matthew Barney...

If you're going to mention Warhol and Matthew Barney here, you should see the work of the young genius Saskia Olde Wolbers!

 

[hans de vries]

Thanks. I agree that Lynch's straightforward style is quite effective. His stories are so weird and nonlinear that he has to resort to very traditional coverage or else I think he'd lose the audience entirely. (Imagine a Lynch script directed by Tony Scott; it would be unwatchable.) Lynch's use of lighting, subjective sound, and manipulations of slight camera movement and framing are really remarkable because these are pretty subtle devices and he gets a tremendous amount out of them in otherwise conventionally shot and covered scenes. I think Lost Highway is a more interesting film than Mulholland Drive, but both are remarkable and extremely accomplished. I like Eraserhead a lot, too.

I consider Spielberg's stories to be more "childlike" than "childish" but.... That's just me. No Country for Old Men is absolutely one of the best movies in recent years and the Coens are among the best working directors; they write good scripts but they also have a remarkable and unusual command of visual language. Formally, No Country for Old Men is worth considering largely in terms of character alignment, genre conventions, and range of narration. Look at how much story information you know at a given time (compared with other characters), which characters you "follow" most in steadicam, dolly, or handheld shots, through which characters' perspectives you get the most POV shots, how this compares with other movies, etc. The first two-thirds of the film are presented essentially as a cat-and-mouse game between Chigurh and Moss, with the Coens aligning us primarily with Moss. We follow Moss the most, know about as much as he knows during moments of high suspense, and he's the most sympathetic character from whom we see the most POV shots, etc. etc. This kind of narrative slight-of-hand sets us up for a horrified and confused reaction when we learn of the the completely unexpected (off-screen!) end to his story...and the movie turns into something else entirely. But as for movies that use constant camera movement, don't dismiss them. Guerillmo del Toro uses a constantly moving camera, sometimes just to add an extra depth cue to the frame, but it's rarely overused in his films.

It's good to read your posts because you seem to be very informed and concentrate on very different things than I do

 

[Peter Strietmann]

I'd like to cast another vote for Matthew Barney.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I like the child-like vs childish distinction.

Personally I always feel a little manipulated by depressing stories. Who was it that said "It's easy to get the audience's sympathy... just kill a puppy."

I think films which aren't depressing, overtly violent, 'clever' or manipulative are often overlooked or looked down upon. I don't think that's really fair. I think Brad Bird for instance deserves special recognition for not only delivering great engaging stories but doing so while remaining kid friendly.

 

[chris.karageorgiou]

Best Directors

Best Directors

Theo Angelopoulos, Abbas Kiarostami, Stanley Kubrick, Richard Linklator, Steven Spielberg, Peter Weir, Hayao Miyazaki among others

 

[Jacek Szwarc-Bronikowski]

>hans de vries

Another extraordinary filmmaker from Netherland - Frans Zwarties !!!

 

[Jason Murphy]

Heres a question to throw into the mix...

Women directors.. Any that step up?

Claire Denis. Beau Travail and L'Intrus are absolute masterpieces.

Also Chantal Akerman.

I'd put Lynne Ramsay up there too on the strength of Ratcatcher and Morvern Callar. Hope she gets funding for something soon.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Peter Kubelka, Paul Sharits, Owen Land, Ken Jacobs, Jack Smith,
Kenneth Anger, Ron Rice, Robert Breer, Ed Emshwiller, Maya Deren,
Stan Brakhage, Bruce Conner, George Kuchar, Harry Smith, Jim Davis,
Stan Van Der Beek, Andy Warhol, Ralph Steiner, Michael Snow,
Len Lay, Jordan Belson, James Whitney, Matthew Barney...

By and large great filmmakers. I'd add Jonas Mekas, Robert Beavers, Gregory Markopoulos, Phil Solomon and Nathaniel Dorsky to the list there. I care for some of their work more than others, of course, but the only real exception I'll take to your list is Matthew Barney, who is a talented sculptor and artist in many respects, but as far as I'm concerned, can't edit a film to save his life. Or at least hasn't given much evidence of it.

 

[hans de vries]

By and large great filmmakers. I'd add Jonas Mekas, Robert Beavers, Gregory Markopoulos, Phil Solomon and Nathaniel Dorsky to the list there. I care for some of their work more than others, of course, but the only real exception I'll take to your list is Matthew Barney, who is a talented sculptor and artist in many respects, but as far as I'm concerned, can't edit a film to save his life. Or at least hasn't given much evidence of it.

people like matthew barney are a bit of a problem here because he clearly positions himself in the artworld and not the filmworld; the urges and preferences in the artworld are different from those in the filmworld; I can imagine that there are artvideo's and films that do not at all live up to the expectations of the world of cinema; that's partly due to a huge lack of funds, but also to the fact that the expectations are different; what cinema people might experience as terribly amateuristic, art people might consider 'down to earth' or realistic or 'seeing the artist at work' or 'provocative'. What has been popular for a while in artvideo, for instance, is long shots in which almost nothing happens, which would really feel outrageous in cinema. But on top of that comes ofcourse that cinema is a gesamtkunstwerk, so many different creative aspects coming together, whereas artists tend to work alone or with a very small team; I know for a fact that there are videoartists who aren't even aware of many aspects of making a cinema movie. On the other hand, I get the feeling that a lot of people in the world of cinema have no idea of many aspects of the making of what usually is referred to as high art (I know it's not a nice term, maybe it's somewhat outdated, but at least you know what I mean)