Name your 3 TOP film directors

I have never seen such movie images as the ones by Kubrick and Dreyer.

Dreyer lets us calm our sight, our vision in his black and white transcendental motion poems ( in some way Robert Bresson makes the same)

Every framing in Kubrick films talk of perfection, of something beyond words and simple framing.

I love these directors who instead of turning us crazy with trepidant half a second long takes they let us put gently our sight into a marvellous contemplative screen.
 
Kuock said:
I have never seen such movie images as the ones by Kubrick and Dreyer.

Dreyer lets us calm our sight, our vision in his black and white transcendental motion poems ( in some way Robert Bresson makes the same)

Every framing in Kubrick films talk of perfection, of something beyond words and simple framing.

I love these directors who instead of turning us crazy with trepidant half a second long takes they let us put gently our sight into a marvellous contemplative screen.
Click to expand...
Definitely two good choices.
 
Well i'm arriving at this party rather late, but:

David O. Russell - the frantic, unpredictable nature of I Heart Huckabees and Flirting With Disaster nails one of the most important and often overlooked aspects of great cinema: they absorb the viewer in the moment and in those that have just passed so entirely that one is never left waiting; the mind is never left unengaged, never allowed to escape the world the film has created. This is a difficult thing to pull of without simply overwhelming the audience with too much information to digest- Russell successfully achieves both a delicate balance of layered, subtle humor and a form of indefinite sensory chaos, all while retaining the certain conceptual clarity necessary to make these kind of films work. Spanking the Monkey and Three Kings are also fantastic, for a variety of other reasons.
 
Just watched Charlie Chaplin retrospective. One of the few directors to deserve being called a genius.
 
I agree with you that Chaplin was a genius although his films wer made in a scant cinematographic way.

To me Chaplin is a great tragic/comic story teller rather than a film director.
 
Kuock said:
I agree with you that Chaplin was a genius although his films wer made in a scant cinematographic way.

To me Chaplin is a great tragic/comic story teller rather than a film director.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can see your point. Chaplin is always used as the quintessential example of the use of mis-en-scene and Eisenstein is used as the quintessential example of montage editing...

They both lead to the develoment of the art.
 
Thanks Coltrain to give me the need to watch a Tarkovski's. Do you have a film you specially recommend ?

I agree with John. If in a sytem like Hollywood, you can produce films like that :

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...............

It means that the system is better than most people believed and let true artists express (sometimes). Because they are Artists. No doubt.

Art will always be the only country of Artist and audience his border line.



May be it's time to let Andreï Tarkovski speak ?

This is an extract of his last interview in his house in Paris while he was ill (28 avril 1986)

Journalist :
As strange as that can appear, people who like your films like also science fiction of Spielberg, which is fascinated by the children. Did you see its films and what you think about them?

A.T:
With this question, you show that you do not care.
Spielberg, Tarkovski... all that for you is the same. Forget it !
There are two kinds of filmmakers. Those which see the cinema like an art and which raise personal questions, which see it like a pain, like a gift, an obligation.

And the others, which see it like a way of earning money. It is the commercial cinema : E.T., for example, is a tale studied and filmed to entertain the greatest number : Spielberg achieved his goal and it is great for him.

It is a goal which I never wished to reach. For me it's no sense.

I take an example:
in Moscow, there are ten million persons, tourists included, and only three concert hall of classical music: the Tchaïkovsky room, the large one and the small room of the academy. A very little place, but everyone is happy. However nobody says that the music does not play any role in the life in the USSR.

Actually, the presence of this great spiritual and divine art is sufficient.

For me, the art of the masses is absurd. Art is mainly an aristocratic mind. The musical art can be only aristocratic, because at the moment of his creation, it expresses the spiritual level of the masses. If everyone was able to understand that, then the "chef d'oeuvre" would be as ordinary as the grass in the fields.

There would not be this potential difference which generates the movement.
 
hvpz:

Thanks for posting this. I had read this before, but had forgotten about it.

I think any true artist would share these sentiments. I don't think Spielberg would deny that he makes his films for money, just as most hollywood filmmakers do.
 
hvpz said:
Thanks Coltrain to give me the need to watch a Tarkovski's. Do you have a film you specially recommend ?
Click to expand...
His last 4 films are his best:
Mirror
Stalker
Nostalghia
The Sacrifice
 
Tarkovsky's obvious jealousy with Spielberg is pathetic. Spielberg makes movies to tell stories...the fact he makes money shows that he picks the RIGHT stories to tell. No one is stopping Tarkovsky from the choices he makes. His quote from another article where he says (so arrogantly) people in London were lined up around the block to see his filmography attests to his vanity and wish to be recognized. If he were a pure "artist" as he portrays himself, with no care for the masses, he should have screened his movies in Coltrain's garage. Just my opinion.
 
"The aristocratic mind".

That is a glorious joke. It is so bereft of any semblance of philosophical signifigance that he should be ashamed.

I spent 4 years learning from a truly brilliant mind - my Irish philosophy professor. He would laugh in Tarkovsky's face for his over arching hubris and lack of Socratic foundation.

Either that or he'd pour a pint on his head. I'm gonna step away from this discussion now because I don't enjoy laughing at an old man clinging to the last vestiges of his ego, while spitting at those who followed him.

Cheerio Tarvo, there are those who love humanity and those who think they do.

The aristocratic mind. That's like something the Borgias would say. What a twit.
And this is what you hang your hat on Coltrain?:)
 
D_and_G said:
"The aristocratic mind".

That is a glorious joke. It is so bereft of any semblance of philosophical signifigance that he should be ashamed.

I spent 4 years learning from a truly brilliant mind - my Irish philosophy professor. He would laugh in Tarkovsky's face for his over arching hubris and lack of Socratic foundation.

Either that or he'd pour a pint on his head. I'm gonna step away from this discussion now because I don't enjoy laughing at an old man clinging to the last vestiges of his ego, while spitting at those who followed him.

Cheerio Tarvo, there are those who love humanity and those who think they do.

The aristocratic mind. That's like something the Borgias would say. What a twit.
And this is what you hang your hat on Coltrain?:)
Click to expand...

Wow, we've found the liberal arts education poster child.

Nothing personal. I love a post that makes me look something up....
 
OT ---

Nope. I took one class in philosophy (which was mandatory). My prof and I shared a love of Neruda and Guiness - he let me sit in on a informal education. He did that often. He would let someone who had a passion for learning or didn't have the money sit in for as long as they saw fit. He only asked that whoever did so give back one day. In their own way. Frankly, not a lot of people took him up on it ( no official credits). Those who did still talk to him today, myself included.

I only mention him, because whenever someone demeans another or their work, I think back to him. He was probably the smartest guy on campus, and the most humble.

Never finished my degree, which was nowhere near a liberal art, cause life called elsewhere.

I would've liked to sit down with Tarkovsky, and maybe if he could see beyond his narrow view of the world and art, we'd have something to talk about.
Sorry if my posts are a little purple.


Cheers:)
 
D_and_G said:
I would've liked to sit down with Tarkovsky, and maybe if he could see beyond his narrow view of the world and art, we'd have something to talk about.
Click to expand...

We used to call them the black-turtleneck-crowd. The artistes -- you know, the folks who were into thea-tuh, and thought doing Moliere on a black stage was the cat's meow.

Dan
 
Coltrain said:
hvpz:

Thanks for posting this. I had read this before, but had forgotten about it.

I think any true artist would share these sentiments. I don't think Spielberg would deny that he makes his films for money, just as most hollywood filmmakers do.
Click to expand...

Not jumping on your balls or anything. I think that Spielberg makes films because he LOVES it. So what if he makes some money? Does it make his films any less artistic because he makes gobs of money on them? They finance a way to do what they love (make films) day after day. I'm so damn jealous.

Soon, my friends....soon....
 
Spielberg doesn't do it for money anymore... why, because he's got more than he could ever spend. He admitted doing JP2 Lost World for the money, and it showed!

He probably wants the films to be successful to raise/maintain his power and status, but "doing it for the money" is us making wedding videos.

He did say a few years back that he was going to stop making films for audiences and start making them for himself. He then released AI - his worst film yet??

Hopefully War of the Worlds will put him back on track, his last really memorable project was Saving Private Ryan IMO. SPR and SchList were obviously not made for the money. I think he gave his profits from each to charity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top