Greatest film director?

[CO68]

Yes.

• Hitchcock had Vertigo, Rear Window, Psycho, and North by Northwest. He is second to no one.
  
• Welles competes really only in this regard with the towering Citizen Kane and A Touch of Evil.
  
• Kubrick had 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Strangelove, and The Shining.
  
• Kurosawa had The Seven Samurai and Rashomon. Some might also say Ran or Yojimbo.
• Lean had Lawrence of Arabia and The Bridge on the River Kwai.
  
• Ford owns westerns with The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
  
• Chaplin from the silent era had City Times and Modern Lights.
  
• For animation Miyazaki towers over all with Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke.
  
• Tarkovsky from the experimental side would have Mirror, Stalker, Andrei Rublev and Solaris.
  
• Bergman from the "thinking man's" realm had Persona, Wild Strawberries, Fanny & Alexander, and The Seventh Seal. I personally prefer him to Godard.
  
• Kieslowski had The Decalog. The greatest religious cinematic work in history. Sort of stands on its own.
  
• Scorsese can choose between Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The Departed, and Goodfellas. He can hang.
  
• Spielberg has Schindler's List & Saving Private Ryan. I'd also personally add Band of Brothers. Hell, even without those, I would score him to this list as the top populist director with the Indiana Jones trilogy, E.T: The Extra Terrestrial, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Jurassic Park. I also personally think Munich is his most underrated film. I just don't know if anyone can match his skills as a craftsman.
  
• Many would argue Tarantino is there with Reservoir Dogs or Kill Bill (Vol. 1 & 2) backing up Pulp Fiction.

Hitchcock also has Rebecca
Kubrick also has Paths of Glory and A Clockwork Orange
Kurosawa also has Ikiru, and possibly Throne of Blood and The Hidden Fortress
Chaplin also has The Gold Rush
Keaton has The General and Sherlock, Jr.
Forman has One Flew and Amadeus
Lang has M and Metropolis

There's a bunch more you could add like Huston, Kazan, Scott, Polanski, Wilder, Leone, Jackson, Fincher, Fellini, etc., but not everyone's going to agree.

 

[Drake]

Lots of good ones. My two favorites off there are probably Nolan & Quentin. Voted Nolan because Inception & Interstellar just blow my mind. Films I can talk about & re-watch forever. Though Interstellar was a true goddamn theater experience.

 

[Benoitthegr8]

I've seen a majority of Kurosawa's films and he was a cinematic genius, his work was influential and set the standard for many of today's great directors. I find it funny that I enjoy watching Japanese movies in black and white more than I enjoy watching most of today's boringly predictable films. Asian cinema in general is unpredictable and keeps me guessing, most of the western movies are very predictable which I find unwatchable.

 

[Madmick]

Hitchcock also has Rebecca
Kubrick also has Paths of Glory and A Clockwork Orange
Kurosawa also has Ikiru, and possibly Throne of Blood and The Hidden Fortress
Chaplin also has The Gold Rush
Keaton has The General and Sherlock, Jr.
Forman has One Flew and Amadeus
Lang has M and Metropolis

There's a bunch more you could add like Huston, Kazan, Scott, Polanski, Wilder, Leone, Jackson, Fincher, Fellini, etc., but not everyone's going to agree.

Hitchcock had a whole lot more than just Rebecca as I listed above. You have to draw a line. In truth my list includes mostly movies that don't really compare to Godfather I + II & Apocalypse Now except in one realm (ex. acclaim among professors of cinema studies and journalists who are tryhard film theorists).

If I only included films that truly sort of registered in that range only a dozen or so films qualify; such that they routinely appear both on populist lists like the IMDb Top 250, but also more exclusive lists such as the Top 50 for the Directors/Critics lists with Sight & Sound. Closer/in the Top 10 is much better. Higher box office totals or video sales are also a big plus, and so is having a major impact on the industry (ex. Star Wars). So are those that have maintained esteem through the weather of time. Then there are those that actually influence culture in other ways (ex. Jurassic Park-- though Crichton gets the bulk of credit-- awakened a major excitement in the mainstream for pursuing genetic research). When you look at the sorts of films that rise to the absolute top of all such aspects of what usually contribute to the canon, then you're really talking about no more than what I listed for Hitchcock, Welles, Kurosawa (first two), Kubrick, Lean, Ford, Chaplin, Scorsese, and Spielberg (first two). That's if we're using this "two of the greatest of the greats" yardstick.

You have to be that ruthless on the cutting floor. The fact is that directors like Bergman, Ozu, Godard, Renoir, Truffaut, Cassavetes, Kieslowski, Tarkovsky, Dreyer, Fellini, Bunuel, and that breed are just too abstruse. Meanwhile, directors like Cameron, Fincher, and Nolan seem to be too accessible (and yes, I'm aware of Inception).

I don't think any additional movies you listed-- as timeless and great as they are-- for the directors I named above really rank except for maybe The Gold Rush by Chaplin, but even then...meh, it's a clear third to the other two. Forman and Lang are also arguable additions with those movies. As unpopular as it is to say I would put D.W. Griffith before Keaton or Lang if I was to include a second silent era filmmaker, but none equal Chaplin, so there's no point. I'm surprised nobody's howled about the omission of Leone yet, but I despite spaghetti westerns, so he gets no love from me.

 

[A Pennysworth]

No Zack Snyder. Outrageous!

 

[CO68]

When you look at the sorts of films that rise to the absolute top of all such aspects of what usually contribute to the canon, then you're really talking about no more than what I listed for Hitchcock, Welles, Kurosawa (first two), Kubrick, Lean, Ford, Chaplin, Scorsese, and Spielberg (first two). That's if we're using this "two of the greatest of the greats" yardstick.

It's rather subjective. There's hundreds of thousands of movies, so I don't think it should be limited to the top 10 or even top 50. The Shining wouldn't make the cut. I don't take it seriously, but the Razzies did nominate it.

I don't think any additional movies you listed-- as timeless and great as they are-- for the directors I named above really rank except for maybe The Gold Rush by Chaplin, but even then...meh, it's a clear third to the other two.

I put it a hair above City Lights and a bit above Modern Times.

Forman and Lang are also arguable additions with those movies. As unpopular as it is to say I would put D.W. Griffith before Keaton or Lang if I was to include a second silent era filmmaker, but none equal Chaplin, so there's no point.

Why no Keaton? He may not have the historical value of Griffith, but has more quality. The General is #18 on AFI's list, #34 on the Sight & Sound list, and in the IMDB top 250. Sherlock, Jr. is what I would recommend to anyone getting into silent films. It's only 45 mins long and is highly inventive. It has a high rating everywhere. It was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry, made the AFI's funniest movie list, made it on Time magazine's all time top 100 movies, and was a big inspiration for Woody Allen's Purple Rose of Cairo. As for Lang, I have M and Metropolis as top 25 movies. They're both highly acclaimed and influential films.

I'm surprised nobody's howled about the omission of Leone yet, but I despite spaghetti westerns, so he gets no love from me.

I listed Leone. I'd definitely put OUATITW and TGTBATU above The Searchers and Liberty Valance.

 

[Skip Reming]

david cronenberg

shivers
rabid
the brood
scanners
videodrome
the dead zone
the fly
dead ringers
naked lunch
crash
existenz
spider

most of his movies are in a genre of their own and could not have been made by anyone else. you knew when you were watching a classic DC movie

 

[Madmick]

It's rather subjective. There's hundreds of thousands of movies, so I don't think it should be limited to the top 10 or even top 50. The Shining wouldn't make the cut. I don't take it seriously, but the Razzies did nominate it.

Objective qualifications become easier when you get this ambitious.

If The Shining doesn't make the cut, and if that's where you wish to set the benchmark, then I can now easily say that none of the additional films you mentioned for directors I already named (except perhaps The Gold Rush) would register. That film has arisen to become favored as the greatest horror in history. Nobody cares about Razzies. It's currently residing at #79 on the Sight & Sound Directors' Top 100 list and it's #58 on the people's IMDb list. It's sewn into cultural DNA, and it routinely appears on "Best Of" lists of every imaginable shape and form when films that were similarly regarded or more esteemed have disappeared.

I put it a hair above City Lights and a bit above Modern Times.

Yes, as I said, that one's tight, but I wish to illuminate that throughout the range of film communities the other two have consistently ranked better throughout history.

Why no Keaton? He may not have the historical value of Griffith, but has more quality. The General is #18 on AFI's list, #34 on the Sight & Sound list, and in the IMDB top 250. Sherlock, Jr. is what I would recommend to anyone getting into silent films. It's only 45 mins long and is highly inventive. It has a high rating everywhere. It was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry, made the AFI's funniest movie list, made it on Time magazine's all time top 100 movies, and was a big inspiration for Woody Allen's Purple Rose of Cairo. As for Lang, I have M and Metropolis as top 25 movies. They're both highly acclaimed and influential films

It doesn't even make the cut for the AFI's Greatest 100 Films and you're trying to argue that it has the canonical capital to make a case for it. If it registered on this level, then it would be on that list, not parked in the also-ran handicap list for comedies. Sherlock Jr. doesn't cut it. I'm glad it influenced one of Woody Allen's minor films, but really? Think about what you're asserting. In this context you are placing Sherlock Jr. on par with Apocalypse Now, Rear Window, A Touch of Evil, Rashomon, The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Saving Private Ryan, Raging Bull or Goodfellas, and your pick of City Lights / Modern Times / Gold Rush. Put as succinctly as possible: no. That film simply isn't a film that can be taken seriously in the discussion for the greatest film of all time.

If you can't get that brutal with the knife, then you gotta step aside man. I'm a butcher.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Motherfucker where is Andrei Tarkovsky?

 

[Da Speeit]

Kubrick and it's not close.

 

[Da Speeit]

Terminator 1
Abyss
Aliens
Terminator 2
Titanic
True Lies
Avatar

Cameron is GOAT.

*vomits*

 

[mbinder]

Spielberg for me. Jaws, ET, Jurassic Park, Minority Report.

 

[I Am Legion]

This one can:

Vertigo
Rear Window
Psycho
North by Northwest
Strangers on a Train
Rope
Rebecca
Dial M for Murder
Shadow of a Doubt
The Birds
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Notorious
The 39 Steps

Have to agree here...His movies were perfectly directed and the pacing, suspense, lighting, soundtracks were always perfect.

 

[Madmick]

Have to agree here...His movies were perfectly directed and the pacing, suspense, lighting, soundtracks were always perfect.

It's not to say that I personally favor Hitchcock's films the most. I enjoy Kubrick more than Hitchcock, personally. I'm just pointing out that it can't be denied that Hitchcock's filmography can contend with anyone's. No matter how you feel it's never open and shut with him.

 

[burningspear]

Takashi Miike.

 

[JSN]

It's not to say that I personally favor Hitchcock's films the most. I enjoy Kubrick more than Hitchcock, personally. I'm just pointing out that it can't be denied that Hitchcock's filmography can contend with anyone's. No matter how you feel it's never open and shut with him.

I think mechanically they can compete with anyone. But what separates a duder like Tarkovsky, Bergman, or Kurosawa from him is the sophistication of themes/thought in their work. I feel like Hitchcock is John Le Carré to one of those guy's Cormac McCarthy.

 

[Madmick]

I think mechanically they can compete with anyone. But what separates a duder like Tarkovsky, Bergman, or Kurosawa from him is the sophistication of themes/thought in their work. I feel like Hitchcock is John Le Carré to one of those guy's Cormac McCarthy.

No, Hitchcock is not anyone's Tom Clancy, but these guys have their value, too. Gripping accessibility is a must for most, and many storytellers who favor this emotional mode are every bit as timeless-- and often much more so-- than their more abstruse counterparts. Perhaps there is no greater example of this from more recent history than Alexander Dumas.

Kurosawa has proven to resonate with the mainstream (across cultures and time) in a way that Tarkovsky and Bergman never could. If I showed Seven Samurai in the public square in my hometown it would be a smash hit. People would adore it. Even rednecks adore Kurosawa. Only those who can't read subtitles might leave, and even then they might still stay. That's how powerful Kurosawa's stuff was to every viewer. If I projected a Bergman film I would lose like half or two thirds of the audience (I predict the well-studied Christians would stay). If I projected a Tarkovsky film there would be like me and one other guy in the grass at the end of the movie. You have to appreciate that many don't interpret cryptic cerebralism as good storytelling, and they don't identify with it.

Hitchcock and Kurosawa were both accessible and dense at the same time. Bergman and Tarkovsky were mostly just dense.

 

[Sampsonsimpson]

Probably Uwe Boll. It took me a long time to realize it. You have to look at his entire career like one long performance piece to really appreciate it.

 

[JSN]

No, Hitchcock is not anyone's Tom Clancy, but these guys have their value, too. Gripping accessibility is a must for most, and many storytellers who favor this emotional mode are every bit as timeless-- and often much more so-- than their more abstruse counterparts. Perhaps there is no greater example of this from more recent history than Alexander Dumas.

Kurosawa has proven to resonate with the mainstream (across cultures and time) in a way that Tarkovsky and Bergman never could. If I showed Seven Samurai in the public square in my hometown it would be a smash hit. People would adore it. Even rednecks adore Kurosawa. Only those who can't read subtitles might leave, and even then they might still stay. That's how powerful Kurosawa's stuff was to every viewer. If I projected a Bergman film I would lose like half or two thirds of the audience (I predict the well-studied Christians would stay). If I projected a Tarkovsky film there would be like me and one other guy in the grass at the end of the movie. You have to appreciate that many don't interpret cryptic cerebralism as good storytelling, and they don't identify with it.

Hitchcock and Kurosawa were both accessible and dense at the same time. Bergman and Tarkovsky were mostly just dense.

Gonna have to agree to disagree here. Tom Clancy <> John Le Carré. Worlds apart.

And in terms of your assertions that Kurosawa is popular with everyone, including rednecks and such and what would happen if you showed certain filmmakers to certain audiences... do you have any data to suggest this? I have no data to suggest that Dostoevsky is a more popular author than Dumas, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.

 

[Cptn1NSAN0]

Michael Mann is my personal favorite