Name your 3 TOP film directors

Chance White said:
Michel Gondry I respected as an amazing visual artist for his music videos, then I saw ETERNAL SUNSHINE, and now he's near the top of my 'can't wait to see more from' list.

Larry Clark, funny, I went to the same high school he did, and the kids in KIDS, were based on the kids I went to high school with..... I haven't seen Ken Park yet, will have to check it out.

Romanek is awesome. I hope he's working on a new narrative feature... love his videos though as well.

Peter Jackson, I believe his best film does not have any hobbits in it... Heavenly Creatures is unbelievable. Kate Winslet's first film. It is absolutely gut wrenchingly heartbreaking and poetic... seek it out if you haven't seen it.

I'm a huge fan of Trey Parker all though I hear he is a pompous arse in person... hahaha

Schumacher, loved Lost Boys, Falling Down was pretty good... but aside from that... he raped Batman.... that's hard to forget.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, dude. Didn't notice it until just now.

Yeah, Ken Park is quite good, but as I said, I think the graphic nature doesn't help. I haven't acutally seen Heavenly Creatures, I've only heard good things though. Although you can't really compare them, I think it'd be hard to beat Braindead! :laugh:

I hope Trey Parker isn't a pompous arse, well if he his, he must have only become one in recent years because I have an interview with him (post-South Park) on the Cannibal! The Musical DVD and he seemed really nice. He said for aspiring filmmakers to just make stuff as much as you can, twas quite inspiring. Yeah, that kind of sucks if it's true.

I'm not really a Batman fan and haven't seen the his movie's since I was young so I only really know Falling Down, which I love.
 
Coltrain said:
...Are any of them good directors when compared to those I mentioned? Not even close. But at the same time they are in different professions, what they do is not the same, so I won't really crticize them...

...But now I realize that the films made by these men and others like them, truly are not even in the same class as Fight Club.

...But is Nolan in the same league as Tarkovsky? You gotta be kiddin'.
Click to expand...

Please don't state your opinions as fact. I Think that Speilberg and Cameron etc etc are artists too!! And damn good ones!!

Just because they are excellent in business too, does not mean that their films are not art. People seem to think that art and money and mutually exclusive, no way! Us British are especially guilty, hence we have no film industry
:angry:

BBC radio 1 just did a poll of silly things that made people cry: you know, Homeward Bound, Watership Down etc. Do you know what won, by A MILE?

...The ending of Terminator 2! You tell me another artist that can make people cry in a scene when a futuristic, killing robot is destroyed. Cameron is a genius.

I can't see why just because everyone enjoys something, it is not art!! Sounds kind of arrogant to me. BTW I am not trying to devalue anyone else's choice of director, just support my own! :laugh:
 
John_Hudson said:
Out of a list like this I might think Kurosawa, Bergman or Godard would make the list but am more surprised you would not find Coppola (early works) at this stature; what about Scorsese? Hitchcock?
Click to expand...
Actually I would agree with this. Guys like Kurosawa and Godard do belong beside guys like Scorsese and Hitchcock, maybe even someone like Fincher. I am not out to label all foreign film as superior to all American film, because I honestly believe that Godard and Kurosawa are doing what American directors do in Hollywood, they are just doing it in Japan and France. They to me, are making the same type of commercial films. Some "film snobs" would see that it can from outside of the U.S. and automatically place it above Hollywood films, but I see them as equal.

The directors I named, I truly do believe are the absolue elite of the world (there are others who are up there) when it comes to film as art and that happens to be what I appreciate most. They move me as much as any Hollywood film ever has. So I not only respect them for what they are, but what they can do to me.
 
Chance White said:
I often feel that their 'I am a sophisticated film elitist' attitude clouds their judgement, and they are afraid that liking something 'popular' and 'mainstream' would reduce their 'status' among the 'film elite'.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I still see Hollywood films and I enjoy them. But, I see those films as being completely sepearate from the films I truly love, because first and foremost they are meant to be entertainment, and to me entertainment could never achieve the same level as a film that is meant to be art. That is why some people don't appreciate them, because they are not meant to watch them and be entertained, so they don't like them.

Scorsese is not less of an artist because he makes more money, but because his films do not achieve the same level of artistry.

Had a Tarkovsky film ever made $200 million it would have been great, impossible, but great.
 
I've got to agree with Coltrain on Coppola (Sophia). I love damn near everything that Bill Murray is in, but for the life of me I couldn't come to think of Lost in Translation as anything above average. It was slow, could have been cut down considerably. Also, it takes a lot (and I mean a LOT) for me to get offended, in fact usually when someone is offended, it is of their own accord (sticks and stones baby!), but I was really put off by how the Japanese were depicted in this movie. Anyone else feel like this?

Another problem I had with this movie is that it seems so damn pretentious! I saw an interview with Sofia and I realized just how devoid of charisma and life she is. I will admit that it has left me biased in regards to LiT (<---:) ). Oh, and for the record, I absolutely hated The Virgin Suicides. Now, I'm no film snob, in fact, I'm all about the love (even for Michael Bay), but I just couldn't come to like these. I heard so much about how "adult" LiT was and how it touched people--I didn't get it. Now, a movie that I consider "adult" and that touched me: Sideways.
 
Oh well. You can't win over everyone. :(

Virgin Suicides was good. Lost in Translation was good. But my *GOOD* may mean *mediocre* or *absolute ***** to someone else. But then again, I try not to prance around and "state my opinions as facts" either. If you didn't like either of the films...that's fine. No one is trying to persuade you or change your mind. Just be respectful of others "opinions" as well. :happy:

Coltrain said:
I state my opinions as fact, because I think they are.

You should do the same.
Click to expand...

Coltrain.....Don't be an ass!! :angry:

~reservoir~
 
The directors I named, I truly do believe are the absolue elite of the world (there are others who are up there) when it comes to film as art and that happens to be what I appreciate most. They move me as much as any Hollywood film ever has. So I not only respect them for what they are, but what they can do to me.
Click to expand...

I can honestly appreciate this take on the subject matter; especially ending in "...but what they can do to me." For that is all that matters in the end.

I state my opinions as fact, because I think they are.
You should do the same.
Click to expand...

Opinion is not fact:

A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

Don't be so quick to label your opinion as fact. That will take the validity of an open forum and squash it. Remember; opinions are like what?

Like I said, I still see Hollywood films and I enjoy them. But, I see those films as being completely sepearate from the films I truly love, because first and foremost they are meant to be entertainment, and to me entertainment could never achieve the same level as a film that is meant to be art. That is why some people don't appreciate them, because they are not meant to watch them and be entertained, so they don't like them.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of films made under the Machine are indeed Entertainment first and foremost. But each year; out of the pack and from some of the biggest names in Hollywood come some truly 'artistic expressions' (for lack of a better word) in filmmaking. These films are not making money until the Academy announces them as contenders and the general public runs out to see what the hype is about.

Films such as The Godfather, The Godfather 2, Lawrence of Arabia, Dances With Wolves, The Last Emperor, Amadeus, Schindlers List, Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, Rear Window and Psycho, American Beauty, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Taxi Driver, GoodFellas, Se7en, L.A. Confidential, Raging Bull, Fargo, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, 21 Grams, In America...............

Take a look at the small but important list and it's almost appaling that you would not find these films as art. This partial list of films is widely considered to be very personal and artistic; the cast, the writers, the directors, the D.P. and on and on...

Being entertained is not as simple as going to a circus. Being entertained from a film is being moved, being transported, being affected by the experience. Do you think Schindlers List was made as entertainment as you define it? 21 Grams? That's an entertaining story. Taxi Driver? A ****ing Circus no doubt. Have you even seen The Godfather films? (Not counting III) What about The Conversation?
 
John_Hudson said:
Films such as The Godfather, The Godfather 2, Lawrence of Arabia, Dances With Wolves, The Last Emperor, Amadeus, Schindlers List, Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, Rear Window and Psycho, American Beauty, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Taxi Driver, GoodFellas, Se7en, L.A. Confidential, Raging Bull, Fargo, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, 21 Grams, In America...............

Take a look at the small but important list and it's almost appaling that you would not find these films as art. This partial list of films is widely considered to be very personal and artistic; the cast, the writers, the directors, the D.P. and on and on...

Being entertained is not as simple as going to a circus. Being entertained from a film is being moved, being transported, being affected by the experience. Do you think Schindlers List was made as entertainment as you define it? 21 Grams? That's an entertaining story. Taxi Driver? A ****ing Circus no doubt. Have you even seen The Godfather films? (Not counting III) What about The Conversation?
Click to expand...
I have seen every one of these films and many of them are very good. However, (I am not sure I can even put it into words) these films are still vastly different in every way then the films I truly love. They all were made to entertain American audiences and were all made to please studios (large or small) and I think that taints them in some ways. In the end they just turn out to be ______ (Not sure.)

Currently I believe there is one exception to this and that would be P.T. Anderson and his last 2 films (Not Hard Eight or Boogie Nights). Punch Drunk Love and Magnolia might be the only 2 "Hollywood" films ever made that I believe achieve close to the same level of art that my "great directors" do. Not quite, but close. They both are absolutely amazing and I hope Anderson continues on this trend.
 
So what is it about the American Audience? The films you have mentioned in this thread and filmmakers have all made films to entertain or for an audience albeit Russain, Italian or French and so on.

What makes these films stand apart from the more self-indulgent American films/filmmakers?

Naming filmmakers such as Bresson, Tarkovsky, Tarr, Brackhage, Antonioni..... on and on and on.... is the niche I mentioned earlier that inevitabley will be found; like fans of Pollack; splatters of paint really. There are fan clubs and organizations devoted to these groups of filmmakers. Is it really an original taste or opinion? It's almost like a sub-culture 'filmicly' speaking whereas there are film snob/elitist's (which I find hard to define as they don't seem elitist or snobbish with merit) who will just refuse to like anything outside of a set parameter. It's gotta be Fellini or Godard or Cassavetes.

I like Anderson. I have only seen Magnolia and Boogie Nights. I have heard wonderful thigns about Hard 8 but just have never had a chane to see it; can't find it. MAgnolia was a captivating film; unitl the frogs fell out of the sky; which I thought just absurd and completely removed me from the world of the film itself. It could of just have had Mickey Mouse show up in Silence of the Lambs as a legitimate character; just snapped me from the world I was drawn into.

You are correct; this thread has a new life.
 
John_Hudson said:
So what is it about the American Audience? The films you have mentioned in this thread and filmmakers have all made films to entertain or for an audience albeit Russain, Italian or French and so on.

What makes these films stand apart from the more self-indulgent American films/filmmakers?

Naming filmmakers such as Bresson, Tarkovsky, Tarr, Brackhage, Antonioni..... on and on and on.... is the niche I mentioned earlier that inevitabley will be found; like fans of Pollack; splatters of paint really. There are fan clubs and organizations devoted to these groups of filmmakers. Is it really an original taste or opinion? It's almost like a sub-culture 'filmicly' speaking whereas there are film snob/elitist's (which I find hard to define as they don't seem elitist or snobbish with merit) who will just refuse to like anything outside of a set parameter. It's gotta be Fellini or Godard or Cassavetes.
Click to expand...
I think Americans have short attention spans. That is why Michael Bay cuts every half second.

I agree that it might be an acquired taste and not for everyone. Appreciating Tarkovsky/Bresson/Tarr/Antonioni is something not everyone can stand. On the other hand, if you like Godard that certainly won't mean you like Tarkovsky (It might even be unlikely). So yes, there would seem to be certain groups who appreciate those that I do.
 
Coltrain said:
I think Americans have short attention spans. That is why Michael Bay cuts every half second.

I agree that it might be an acquired taste and not for everyone. Appreciating Tarkovsky/Bresson/Tarr/Antonioni is something not everyone can stand. On the other hand, if you like Godard that certainly won't mean you like Tarkovsky (It might even be unlikely). So yes, there would seem to be certain groups who appreciate those that I do.
Click to expand...

Yeah! Michael Bay rocks! And about your other posts...umm...what was I sayin? Yeah! Michael Bay rocks! :laugh: So take that!!!
 
I will agree with that statement. I think generally speaking the majority of Americans have 'short attention' spans. Particulary the younger generation; the younger generation applying to probaly all westernized countries.

I like Bay for what Bay does; pop-corn. I have always said "I don't need to be transcended every time I watch a film." Sometimes, I just want my 5 year old son on my lap with some pop-corn and soda.

But Americans have not always had short-attention spans; that's a modern sentiment and phenomenon. The filmmakers in the 'International Cinema' list haven't really done much modernly. Half the one's you mention have passed on haven't they? Their body of work encompassing mainly, what? The 1950's? 1960's? So can we say it's 'short attention spans?'

I have always wondered what acquired taste is really saying 'One that is unpleasant on immediate experience or is likeable only after being experienced repeatedly'

I think having a more eclectic taste in film can be more rewarding and enlightening than having a discriminating approach; would you agree or disagreee with this statement?
 
John_Hudson said:
But Americans have not always had short-attention spans; that's a modern sentiment and phenomenon. The filmmakers in the 'International Cinema' list haven't really done much modernly. Half the one's you mention have passed on haven't they? Their body of work encompassing mainly, what? The 1950's? 1960's? So can we say it's 'short attention spans?'

I have always wondered what acquired taste is really saying 'One that is unpleasant on immediate experience or is likeable only after being experienced repeatedly'

I think having a more eclectic taste in film can be more rewarding and enlightening than having a discriminating approach; would you agree or disagreee with this statement?
Click to expand...
Well, the "short attention spans" more explains why American films are made the way they are; which is basically fast-paced, in some way or another.

In my own experience I have not needed multiple viewings to appreciate a film. I think that if you do, you've someone how missed the point, rather than gotten it, regardless of whether or not you end up liking it. So I would say, that you just flat out like it or you don't. However, you could be like me and you could experience a progression into "art" film over the course of several years, beginning to appreciate them more and more with the more films you see and there is nothing wrong with that. For example, I have seen hundreds of foreign films over the last couple of years and through all of that I was able discover what I liked and what I didn't; i.e., I hate Kurosawa and I love Tarkovsky(I name him most often because he is the greatest). So I didn't really adapt to them, I just found out which I liked.

I certainly agree that if you are open to all films then you are better off, rather than if you claimed to "hate all hollywood movies" or something along those lines. As I've said Tarkovsky is the greatest filmmaker who ever lived, but I can't wait to see Batman Begins tomorrow.
 
You hate Kurasawa? Now your just freakin me out. Do you like Bergman?

Here's some interesting food for thought. Did you know Tarkovsky's films were censored by the Soviet Government? I know you are not the only one who thinks he is 'The Greatest Ever' but that's an interesting proclamation for someone with 10 films to their credit and a majority of those being censored by a communist government. I wonder how much of Andrei we really do not know? Like pages of a book being torn out randowmly I am sure.

I'm going to seek out him work and see what it means for me personally. Something tells me the local Blockbuster isn't carrying any of his films however.
 
Stanley Kubrick
Ridley Scott
Danny Boyle

plus + inpo

Sam Raimi
Bryan Singer
The Cohen Bros
Dario Argento
John Boorman
David Cronenberg
Michael Mann
Oliver Stone
Chirstopher Guest
Francis Coppola
Kevin Smith
Peter Jackson
John Carpenter
Dan O'Bannon
Scorsese
Romero
David Lean
Woody Allen
David Lynch

ummm....
 
John_Hudson said:
You hate Kurasawa? Now your just freakin me out. Do you like Bergman?

Here's some interesting food for thought. Did you know Tarkovsky's films were censored by the Soviet Government? I know you are not the only one who thinks he is 'The Greatest Ever' but that's an interesting proclamation for someone with 10 films to their credit and a majority of those being censored by a communist government. I wonder how much of Andrei we really do not know? Like pages of a book being torn out randowmly I am sure.

I'm going to seek out him work and see what it means for me personally. Something tells me the local Blockbuster isn't carrying any of his films however.
Click to expand...
I like 2 Bergman films (Winter Light his only masterpiece and Persona).

Tarkovsky made his last 2 films outside of Russia because of the censorship (which comprise 4 of his best [The Sacrifice, Nostalghia, Mirror, Stalker]). I believe some of the early ones that were censored have since been restored to how they were intended.

I'd check the local library, sometimes you can find some films there that you won't in a rental store.
 
Coltrain said:
I state my opinions as fact, because I think they are.

You should do the same.
Click to expand...

I think it annoys people.

Opinion and fact are VERY different. It is not a good idea to confuse them. I respect your opinion, but a few "I thinks" and "IMO" won't go amiss... IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top