Best film director

[David Rasberry]

Don't forget David Lean. Lawrence of Arabia is certainly among my all time favorites.
Kubrick for sure, the shining example of a truly independent auteur.
Spielberg is a superbly skilled cinematic story teller. He knows how to push all the right buttons in a formulaic sense to manipulate the emotions of an audience. But his films for me feel calculated, as if he is not emotionally connected to them at all, with the possible exception of Schindler's List.
Love the Cohen brothers, ever the misanthropes.

 

[Yousuf Abbasi]

and werner herzog!!! almodovar!!

Ah yes, now we are talking!!

 

[hans de vries]

and now that we are talking, putting spielberg and tarkofsky (oh why does nobody mention fellini!) in one thread is like asking a wagnerian to compare wagner to michael jackson; michael jackson obviously was a phenomenon and extremely talented, but this is useless;people are never going to agree, or be happy about a compromise

 

[David Rasberry]

and now that we are talking, putting spielberg and tarkofsky (oh why does nobody mention fellini!) in one thread is like asking a wagnerian to compare wagner to michael jackson; michael jackson obviously was a phenomenon and extremely talented, but this is useless;people are never going to agree, or be happy about a compromise

I don't think one can pick or agree on a "best" in any art form. Style, purpose and taste all enter into the equation. Comparing Rembrandt and Warhol would be just as futile. There are many directors I like, but for different reasons. Each is a unique artist.

 

[Jaime Vallés]

Comparing Rembrandt and Warhol would be just as futile.

It's not futile. Rembrandt was better. :biggrinjester:

 

[Tom Lowe]

is like asking a wagnerian to compare wagner to michael jackson; michael jackson obviously was a phenomenon and extremely talented, but this is useless

LMAO, now THAT would be a great thread - Wagner vs MJ. :smilielol5:

 

[hans de vries]

okay!! you start!!

 

[David Rasberry]

It's not futile. Rembrandt was better. :biggrinjester:

In this case I would agree. :thumbup1:

Wonder if anyone will be listening to Michael Jackson in 100 years.:tongue:

 

[RRafael]

Guillermo del Toro

Guillermo del Toro

Guillermo del Toro & Tim Burton..for me .. Laberinto del Fauno is Amazing Movie for ever!

 

[Yousuf Abbasi]

Guillermo del Toro & Tim Burton..for me .. Laberinto del Fauno is Amazing Movie for ever!

Pan's labyrinth was excellent, so was The orphanage. He's good at creating his world..

 

[Policar]

Andrei Tarkovsky
Stan Brakhage
Carl Dreyer

Among many others. Ford, Ozu, Bresson, Tati, Mizoguchi, Kubrick, Antonioni, Hou et al. Any one list is going to be woefully inadequate.

And just to stir things up a bit, I'd argue that anyone who seriously thinks that Spielberg is the greatest filmmaker of all time is simply ignorant of the vast majority of film history. Not that the guy isn't talented (he is), but he wouldn't even be near the top of greatest American filmmakers, let alone those from other countries.

This is a completely ridiculous statement--not so much elitist as exceptionally stupid and close-minded. I can understand claiming something along these lines from the perspective of an art-film fan, someone who defines great cinema against Classical norms rather than in the context of who uses them most effectively and transparently (although Ford falls into the latter camp), but to list Brakhage as a great "director" and dismiss the possibility that Spielberg might be one is outright lunacy.

Granted you might not like Spielberg's films as much as most audiences do (and that's fine), but he's been one of the most influential voices in visual language in modern American cinema and he remains (along with Raimi, the Coens, the Wachowskis, and few others) one of the few completely fluent old-school Classical directors. Ironically, his early films, which were hugely, hugely innovative (and quite distinct from their Hollywood Renaissance contemporaries), are the films from which modern visual cues (as Bordwell calls it "intensified continuity"), and arguably the downfall of Classical syntax, came about.

In an era of increased focus on the recording medium, ambiguity, and semi-reflexive devices inspired largely by the French and Italians (consider the Conversation and Blowup in particular, both examinations of recording and the inherent subjectivity imposed by the viewing/listening process), Spielberg not only preferred to shoot Classical decoupage (he hated the zoom, which both Kubrick and Scorsese, relatively less experimental filmmakers than Antonioni, etc., embraced in this era), he reinvented it. Spielberg largely ignored art-film trends, the overt cues used by Hitchcock and his imitators (POV, limited range of narration, a focus on montage), "theatrical" deep staging used by Welles and Wyler, the sweeping camera movements of Preminger and Ophuls, etc. etc. in favor of more indirectly subjective devices, similar to those used by Lean and Ford. But Spielberg took these devices further, and used near-POV shots, a camera that was at once at a physical distance from the characters it followed but also evocative of their emotions, aperture framing, etc. to make films that were more formally transparent and naturalistic than Hitchcock or Wyler (on one hand) or Kubrick or Coppolla (on the other). He then used these cues to give the audience significant emotional access to his protagonists, but never with the guilt Hitchcock tried to instill (by virtue of aligning the viewer so closely with a guilty party) or the voyeuristic uneasiness that we feel in much contemporaneous semi-reflexive International Art Cinema/Hollywood Renaissance film. That Spielberg's films usually centered around a sort of broken family that was reconciled by virtue of the supernatural only increased their efficacy and popularity, as the process of watching an early Spielberg film not only becomes magical (by virtue of the audience being aligned emotionally with someone who experiences "magic") it also became somewhat redemptive, something that brings the family together.

Looking at modern filmmaking trends, it's easy to see how Spielberg's cues have been appropriated (and misappropriated, sadly), more than those of any other recent director. The films that have copied Spielberg's techniques probably aren't the ones you like; I'm not crazy about most summer blockbusters, either, and it's silly for anyone to call him the best director of all time. After all, films don't exist in a vacuum, and what's good and what's bad are subjective judgements. But Spielberg is the most accomplished and most influential still-working director, particularly as regards Hollywood cinema, and to say he flat-out does not deserve that kind of recognition is far more close-minded and self-important than the views of someone who would never watch a Dreyer or Ozu film not because they don't respect those directors, but because they don't enjoy art cinema. Don't mistake your subjective enjoyment and appreciation with an eye for objective talent. (For what it's worth, I cannot stand Tati's Play Time, and have had no desire to see anything else he's made since I watched it, but I'll grant you he's a talented director with interesting and big ideas and he realized them very well in that film. It just put me to sleep.)

 

[hans de vries]

As I said, it's useless comparing wagner to michael jackson; and: I've studied literary theory, and hence I know that when you start getting as serious as in the text above, you don't want to do that on a forum; you'd better go to university or write a number of books

 

[Tom Lowe]

This is a completely ridiculous statement--not so much elitist as exceptionally stupid and close-minded. I can understand claiming something along these lines from the perspective of an art-film fan, someone who defines great cinema against Classical norms rather than in the context of who uses them most effectively and transparently (although Ford falls into the latter camp), but to list Brakhage as a great "director" and dismiss the possibility that Spielberg might be one is outright lunacy.

Granted you might not like Spielberg's films as much as most audiences do (and that's fine), but he's been one of the most influential voices in visual language in modern American cinema and he remains (along with Raimi, the Coens, the Wachowskis, and few others) one of the few completely fluent old-school Classical directors. Ironically, his early films, which were hugely, hugely innovative (and quite distinct from their Hollywood Renaissance contemporaries), are the films from which modern visual cues (as Bordwell calls it "intensified continuity"), and arguably the downfall of Classical syntax, came about.

In an era of increased focus on the recording medium, ambiguity, and semi-reflexive devices inspired largely by the French and Italians (consider the Conversation and Blowup in particular, both examinations of recording and the inherent subjectivity imposed by the viewing/listening process), Spielberg not only preferred to shoot Classical decoupage (he hated the zoom, which both Kubrick and Scorsese, relatively less experimental filmmakers than Antonioni, etc., embraced in this era), he reinvented it. Spielberg largely ignored art-film trends, the overt cues used by Hitchcock and his imitators (POV, limited range of narration, a focus on montage), "theatrical" deep staging used by Welles and Wyler, the sweeping camera movements of Preminger and Ophuls, etc. etc. in favor of more indirectly subjective devices, similar to those used by Lean and Ford. But Spielberg took these devices further, and used near-POV shots, a camera that was at once at a physical distance from the characters it followed but also evocative of their emotions, aperture framing, etc. to make films that were more formally transparent and naturalistic than Hitchcock or Wyler (on one hand) or Kubrick or Coppolla (on the other). He then used these cues to give the audience significant emotional access to his protagonists, but never with the guilt Hitchcock tried to instill (by virtue of aligning the viewer so closely with a guilty party) or the voyeuristic uneasiness that we feel in much contemporaneous semi-reflexive International Art Cinema/Hollywood Renaissance film. That Spielberg's films usually centered around a sort of broken family that was reconciled by virtue of the supernatural only increased their efficacy and popularity, as the process of watching an early Spielberg film not only becomes magical (by virtue of the audience being aligned emotionally with someone who experiences "magic") it also became somewhat redemptive, something that brings the family together.

Looking at modern filmmaking trends, it's easy to see how Spielberg's cues have been appropriated (and misappropriated, sadly), more than those of any other recent director. The films that have copied Spielberg's techniques probably aren't the ones you like; I'm not crazy about most summer blockbusters, either, and it's silly for anyone to call him the best director of all time. After all, films don't exist in a vacuum, and what's good and what's bad are subjective judgements. But Spielberg is the most accomplished and most influential still-working director, particularly as regards Hollywood cinema, and to say he flat-out does not deserve that kind of recognition is far more close-minded and self-important than the views of someone who would never watch a Dreyer or Ozu film not because they don't respect those directors, but because they don't enjoy art cinema. Don't mistake your subjective enjoyment and appreciation with an eye for objective talent. (For what it's worth, I cannot stand Tati's Play Time, and have had no desire to see anything else he's made since I watched it, but I'll grant you he's a talented director with interesting and big ideas and he realized them very well in that film. It just put me to sleep.)

First of all, it's innapropriate to call Jason Murphy's opinions "exceptionally stupid and close-minded." He is a valuable member of this community, and we do not go around insulting one another here. Your post is well thought out (from your point of view), but leading into it with an insult does you no service.

Spielberg is to film as John Grisham is to books, or as Garth Brooks is to country music. Yes, he's extremely popular and makes entertaining films, but you simply cannot compare Spielberg to the likes of Kubrick or Kurosawa or Malick or Tarkovsky any more than you can compare John Grisham to Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Can you imagine someone coming onto a thread about greatest writers of all time and saying that John Grisham is a the greatest? They would be laughed off the thread.

There are people who create popular entertainment, and then there are artists. When we talk about the "greatest" painter, musician, filmmaker, writer, etc, we are usually talking about artists.

 

[Brandon Kraemer]

To quote one of my favorite comedy characters, The Dude from The Big Lebowski: "Yea well that's like... your opinion, man."

I think that is all this thread is about, your opinion. And by your, I mean the royal you, man. No need to get ones panties in a twist, it's just a forum.

Now... you got any more of that Sarsaparilla?

 

[Policar]

First of all, it's innapropriate to call Jason Murphy's opinions "exceptionally stupid and close-minded." He is a valuable member of this community, and we do not go around insulting one another here. Your post is well thought out (from your point of view), but leading into it with an insult does you no service.

Spielberg is to film as John Grisham is to books, or as Garth Brooks is to country music. Yes, he's extremely popular and makes entertaining films, but you simply cannot compare Spielberg to the likes of Kubrick or Kurosawa or Malick or Tarkovsky any more than you can compare John Grisham to Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Can you imagine someone coming onto a thread about greatest writers of all time and saying that John Grisham is a the greatest? They would be laughed off the thread.

There are people who create popular entertainment, and then there are artists. When we talk about the "greatest" painter, musician, filmmaker, writer, etc, we are usually talking about artists.

I'm sorry for the insult, but inherent in Jason's post is a worse insult aimed at any Spielberg fan. Jason's combination of self-righteousness and passive-aggressive condescension is fairly disgusting to me, someone who has to deal with similar attitudes at work all the time.

Popularity and artistic merit aren't mutually exclusive. Shakespeare was fairly popular in his day; Chaucer (widely accepted as the father of modern English and the primary person to affirm its literary merit, and someone whose works I've read in their near entirety) wrote dirty stories. I fully consider Spielberg to be a Chaucer or Shakespeare-like figure--someone whose work has mass appeal and is innovative to the extent that it redefines the language in which it is told. Hitchcock holds a similar status, although his works are so thematically and formally similar as to influence a smaller range of films. (He's also harder to emulate.)

Malick is a phenomenal filmmaker; I place both Days of Heaven and Badlands among my favorite films (right beside Vertigo, Indiana Jones, Speed Racer, and Close Encounters), but Malick barely even works in the same medium as does Hitchcock. You can't really compare the merits of one director versus the other; they're both completely brilliant, the best at what they do, and you either like what they do or you don't. Both are making art, and both are making great films, they're just working in very different ways.

Drawing a firm distinction between art (conceptual) and craft (technical) is the primary mark of a snob and, as regards film, indicative of someone who views things at the surface-level--looking for easy metaphors and symbolism and ignoring depth in terms of shot choice, staging, etc. My favorite directors are those who elevate form (rather than surface-level subject matter) to the level of art, and to this extent I would consider Spielberg (and to a lesser extent Sam Raimi) to be today's greatest directors. To those who prefer European and Asian art cinema, that's fine--it's a matter of taste and there are artists there as talented as in America. But to consider Spielberg anything less than a genius because people can enjoy his movies is the very definition of elitism. In my mind, Brett Ratner, Simon West, even journeymen like Christopher Nolan and Gore Verbinski are the John Grishams of filmmaking. Malick may very well be the Doesteovsky (Brothers Karamazov is one of my all-time favorite books and certainly digressively philosophical in a very Malick-like way). But Spielberg is like Shakespeare, a true genius with popular appeal and incredible formal brilliance and depth.

 

[Ace]

The problem is, Directors arent that analoguous to to the sole artist, composer or writer most of the time. I call it the myth of the "Genius". Filmmaking is mostly a collaborative artform, and the myth of the single mind of the director is quickly debunked once you get to meet the incredible team behind each great director. Some directors are true artists though.. But most aren't in that job description.

I think the entire process of filmmaking in general is the closest we can get (besides the practice of Architecture) to a truly collaboritve conciousness when creating art. On a good project with the right people, you feel it in the air. Everyone is thinking the same thing, and share the same idea even if it is unspoken.

But its not comparable to the individual artist (such as a painter, writer or composer) who his sole job is to be introspective..

If I was to list the "greatest" director Id also be listing the people he always works with.

 

[Policar]

The problem is, Directors arent that analoguous to to the sole artist, composer or writer most of the time. I call it the myth of the "Genius". Filmmaking is mostly a collaborative artform, and the myth of the single mind of the director is quickly debunked once you get to meet the incredible team behind each great director. Some directors are true artists though.. But most aren't in that job description.

I think the entire process of filmmaking in general is the closest we can get (besides the practice of Architecture) to a truly collaboritve conciousness when creating art. On a good project with the right people, you feel it in the air. Everyone is thinking the same thing, and share the same idea even if it is unspoken.

But its not comparable to the individual artist (such as a painter, writer or composer) who his sole job is to be introspective..

If I was to list the "greatest" director Id also be listing the people he always works with.

That's true, but it extends beyond that. Critics are obsessed with locating authorship in film, and it's a worthy pursuit in same cases, but it's fairly pointless to stack "auteurs" against each other based on working methods. (That said, early Classical Hollywood often found producers (Thalberg) with more influence than directors, and there have been great movies made and destroyed by the studio, not the director.)

Granted: Citizen Kane was great largely because of Welles, but Toland and Mankiewicz were integral to creating its innovative visual style and unconventional narrative structure, respectively. Spielberg's style is deeply influenced by the advice of the first cinematographers he worked with, and it's hard to ignore the contributions made by Slocombe, Kaminski, and Kahn to his films.

But directing film is almost like being a CEO or a politician; you can't make every choice yourself. You either micromanage or delegate work to those you trust, but ultimately it's your vision and responsibility however you approach it.

So, as regards filmmaking, I'm not going to call Malick any less of an "author" than I would a filmmaker who relies less on his cinematographers. Woody Allen is very hands-off on set; Micheal Bay is very hands-on. I consider both of them to be great filmmakers, though both have made bad movies. A lack of technical understanding can be overcome by good communication with technical people. Irrespective of managerial style (and assuming you can get by studio pressure) you can be a great filmmaker--just so long as you ultimately understand the implications of the choices you make as well as the choices you allow others to make. Citizen Kane has a great script and great photography, but what's amazing is how well they work together--and that cohesiveness is Welles' influence. But that doesn't detract from anyone else's work one bit. Admittedly, this is a kind of half-assed way to approach the whole authorship issue, but it's what I go with because I think people glamorize the "lone auteur" (like Robert Rodriguez) to a ridiculous extent that shortchanges other crew-members and more collaborative directors alike.

 

[Liam Hall]

If I was to list the "greatest" director Id also be listing the people he always works with.

Many great directors leave an indelible mark on their films, no matter whom they are collaborating with. Yes, great directors have great teams behind them, but it is not necessarily the team that defines the director or their greatness.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Drawing a firm distinction between art (conceptual) and craft (technical) is the primary mark of a snob...

So you don't think it's valid to draw this type of comparison between John Grisham and Leo Tolstoy, for example? One man writes entertaining books, the other is an artist and genius of the highest order. The two simply should not be compared in the same thread, IMO.

Comparing Spielberg to Shakespeare is pretty far out there, IMO. Has Spielberg ever even written his own material? I think Spielberg is a good and entertaining director, but that is different from being a major artistic genius.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

ME!! :beer:

That is too tough... this should be like the movie thread where someone asked for the top five of the decade and people gave 20+ movies each.

I don't think anyone mentioned Ron Howard yet.