Guardian picks top 40 directors

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Using an obsure rating system too:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/page/0,11456,1082823,00.html

1. David Lynch
2. Martin Scorsese
3. Joel and Ethan Coen
4. Steven Soderbergh
5. Terrence Malick
6. Abbas Kiarostami
7. Errol Morris
8. Hayao Miyazaki
9. David Cronenberg
10. Terence Davies
11. Lukas Moodysson
12. Lynne Ramsay
13. Bela Tarr
14. Wong Kar-wai
15. Pedro Almodovar
16. Todd Haynes
17. Quentin Tarantino
18. Tsai Ming-Liang
19. Aki Kaurismaki
20. Michael Winterbottom
21. Paul Thomas Anderson
22. Michael Haneke
23. Walter Salles
24. Alexander Payne
25. Spike Jonze
26. Aleksandr Sokurov
27. Ang Lee
28. Michael Moore
29. Wes Anderson
30. Takeshi Kitano
31. Richard Linklater
32. Gaspar Noé
33. Pavel Pawlikowski
34. David O Russell
35. Larry and Andy Wachowski
36. Samira Makhmalbaf
37. Lars von Trier
38. Takashi Miike
39. David Fincher
40. Gus Van Sant

Who was left off? Who should have been left off? Where the FUCK is Spielberg?

Ok, i know list threads are kind of boring so please feel free to turn this into a "current state of cinema" discussion.

― ryan (ryan), Friday, 14 November 2003 20:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Doesn't only one of the Coens actually direct the films?

― chester (synkro), Friday, 14 November 2003 20:28 (twenty-two years ago)

On the credits oen is down as being producer, the other director, but they pretty much share duties, I think.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Friday, 14 November 2003 20:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Sheesh. Could David Lynch be any more overrated? And yeah, Spielberg was robbed. As were Paul Zemeckis, Amy Heckerling, Tim Burton, Sam Raimi, Peter Weir, Clint Eastwood, and a bunch of other people.

― o. nate (onate), Friday, 14 November 2003 20:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Surely "Michael Moore" is a typo-should be "Michael Mann", right? Right? !!!!????!!!!

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 14 November 2003 20:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Steven Soderbergh shouldn't be anywhere near a list like this.

Where are David Gordon Green, Julio Medem, and Curtis Hanson?

Where the FUCK is Spielberg?

Where he belongs! ;)

Interesting to see Walter Salles so high...

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 14 November 2003 20:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Errol Morris at #7? Is Fog of War even out yet? I haven't heard of any of his other films...

And where are s1utsky and Anhtony Miccio???

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 14 November 2003 20:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Right... those categories mean what, exactly? Could they not have given them proper scores, you know, like Long-Range Weaponry and Black Magic?

― William Bloody Swygart (mrswygart), Friday, 14 November 2003 20:57 (twenty-two years ago)

ha i will avoid turning this into a spielberg argument but still you have to admit he is conspicuous by his absense - and it seems that the list is very short on commercial/hollywood type directors.

Errol Morris did "Gates of Heaven" (doc about a pet cemetary) which is beautiful.

― ryan (ryan), Friday, 14 November 2003 20:59 (twenty-two years ago)

my spelling is for shit today

― ryan (ryan), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:00 (twenty-two years ago)

And...why all the love for Michael Winterbottom? He's not bad, but if you're going to have a "joker in the pack", I'd pick someone like Ben Hopkins to shake things up a little. Isn't that what these things are for?

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:01 (twenty-two years ago)

and it seems that the list is very short on commercial/hollywood type directors

Exactly. This list is very rockist.

― o. nate (onate), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:01 (twenty-two years ago)

ha i will avoid turning this into a spielberg argument but still you have to admit he is conspicuous by his absense - and it seems that the list is very short on commercial/hollywood type directors.

Yes he is, but his exclusion seems deliberate whereas leaving Michael Mann off (whatever his MANY faults) just seems like a glaring oversight...

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:03 (twenty-two years ago)

McG should be on there, too! Instead of Spike Jonze!

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Why is michael moore ahead of Wes Anderson?

― Jay Dee Sah Mon (Kingfish), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:07 (twenty-two years ago)

fassbinder!

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Um, isn't he dead?

― o. nate (onate), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:10 (twenty-two years ago)

If Bill & Ted were here we could send them back in time to tell Tim Burton "Dude, I know it sounds like a good idea, but you totally shouldn't do Planet of the Apes, man.", and in that alternate reality he's in the Top 20 on this list.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:10 (twenty-two years ago)

i dont know, the fact that he actually has a sense of humor might hurt him with the crowd that made this list.

― ryan (ryan), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:14 (twenty-two years ago)

*cough cough*coen brothers*cough cough*

I do see your point though.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:21 (twenty-two years ago)

no ridley scott? or even oliver stone for that matter?

― Jack St E (Jack St E), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:22 (twenty-two years ago)

i think that many of these were chosen for political rather then aesthic reasons, as gaurdian would be wont to do. The joy that i have is the sheer no. of v. v. good documentary film makers.

― anthony easton (anthony), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:24 (twenty-two years ago)

christ that list is awful. the top 5 in particular is jaw-droppingly bad. putting michael moore on the list AT ALL = err?

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:25 (twenty-two years ago)

i dont know, the fact that he actually has a sense of humor might hurt him with the crowd that made this list.

I don't know, isn't Mann one of the most humorless directors currently working?

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:36 (twenty-two years ago)

ridiculous!

― s1utsky (slutsky), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:57 (twenty-two years ago)

He's here! Everything's going to be alright!

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh wait, were you referring to the list or my comment about Michael Mann? Do you think he actually has his fair share of "laffs"? Context! :)

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 14 November 2003 22:02 (twenty-two years ago)

christ almighty! no jean luc godard! /me faints.

also, if you have lynne ramsay, you have to have david gordon green on it too, by principle alone.

― todd swiss (eliti), Friday, 14 November 2003 22:09 (twenty-two years ago)

no, the whole thing is ridiculous, but I hate lists so perhaps I am not qualified to comment! what does it all mean etc.!

― s1utsky (slutsky), Friday, 14 November 2003 22:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Isn't that guy who made great horror films like Braindead some sort of big, awardwinning movie director now? You'd have thought that he might have been in here...

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 14 November 2003 22:16 (twenty-two years ago)

hmm...'substance' rating.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 14 November 2003 22:22 (twenty-two years ago)

hmm...'substance' rating.

Larry Clark would be #1 on that category alone! ;)

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 14 November 2003 22:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I wonder which substance they are referring to.

― o. nate (onate), Friday, 14 November 2003 22:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Brought to you by Pitchfork. No wait. I suppose Kaurismaki is their excuse for leaving out Jarmusch.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 14 November 2003 22:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Ketchup?

― Jay Dee Sah Mon (Kingfish), Saturday, 15 November 2003 00:15 (twenty-two years ago)

No Spike Lee or Terry Gilliam? Surely they deserve spots over David Fincher and Richard Linklater. Also, Lynch over Scorcese makes no sense according to any criteria.

― kyle, Saturday, 15 November 2003 00:49 (twenty-two years ago)

It makes sense re: "credibility."

― Leee Majors (Leee), Saturday, 15 November 2003 00:52 (twenty-two years ago)

No Kurosawa? Ford?

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 15 November 2003 01:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I think they're dead, now.

― RJG (RJG), Saturday, 15 November 2003 01:09 (twenty-two years ago)

kinda raises a disturbing question thought if this list were for all-time, would any of these directors deserve to make it?

― ryan (ryan), Saturday, 15 November 2003 01:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Ah, nevermind. Your post kinda makes it seem like you just tried to off them, rjg.

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 15 November 2003 01:16 (twenty-two years ago)

should be higher:
Wong Kar-wai
Gaspar Noe
Sokurov
Paul Thomas Anderson
Michael Haneke

should be lower:
Coens
Miyazaki
Cronenburg
Lynn Ramsay

shouldnt bloody be on there:
Soderburgh
Pavel Pawlikowski
Linklater
Michael fuckin Moore

― jed (jed_e_3), Saturday, 15 November 2003 03:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Playing devil's advocate here... most of these directors have made at least one film that impressed me in some respect. And some of the stabs at multiculturalism (as bald-faced and easy as they were) with Kiarostami, Tsai and la femme Makhmalbaf were pretty gutsy, assuming most of the readers will be the types to argue over whether P.T. Anderson or David Fincher is the greatest director of all time. Still, I have to go with some of the rest of y'awl who protest the pass given to quite a few of the British directors (Winterbottom in particular).

(And, yes, Fog of War has shown. It was just here in Minneapolis. I had to miss it, though, in order to make time to see Peter Watkins' La Commune.)

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Saturday, 15 November 2003 03:23 (twenty-two years ago)

i agree eric - its mostly a good list, excepting the silly exclusion of david gordon green and probably some others i cant think of!

― jed (jed_e_3), Saturday, 15 November 2003 03:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Bit miffed there seems to be only one female in the list. No Jane Campion for starters.

― Trayce (trayce), Saturday, 15 November 2003 03:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Two women, though why one of them isn't Claire Denis or Catherine Breillat is anyone's guess (excluding those who hate either, obviously).

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Saturday, 15 November 2003 03:43 (twenty-two years ago)

oh yes! campion - she should definatley be on there. i mean her films of late have been below par but she is always interesting. i mean i'd rather watch a failure of hers like "holy smoke" than some steven soderbugh crap.

denis and breillat - yes also, im seeing now how crazy this list is!

― jed (jed_e_3), Saturday, 15 November 2003 03:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Hi, uh, Stanley Kubrick?

― rgeary (rgeary), Saturday, 15 November 2003 04:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, I've enjoyed Todd Haynes' and Alexander Payne's films so far, but come on. Linklater? Gak.

― rgeary (rgeary), Saturday, 15 November 2003 04:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 78 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

Martin, Bergman isn't dead.

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Monday, 17 November 2003 20:10 (twenty-two years ago)

"It's only a movie, Ingrid"

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Monday, 17 November 2003 20:28 (twenty-two years ago)

I would like to see a list like this for screenwriters.

Many of the directors listed are screenwriters.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Ooh, I thought he'd died some years ago! Sorry! He has just retired then, which admittedly hardly makes me right, but he's still not a current director.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:41 (twenty-two years ago)

au contraire, he's just coming back. he wrote 'faithless' which i think ullman directed a couple years ago. i think it's tough putting sophomore directors like lynn ramsay/spike jonze next to veterans. there are plenty of great films made by people who never really worked again at the same level -- carax is one of these, i'd argue, who's at least as good as tarantion but hasn't quite lit any fires since.

― enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 09:33 (twenty-two years ago)

He's never been inactive as a person - but he's finished with film as a director. He occasionally kicks around scripts, which usually get passed along to Ullman, but he still does plenty of stuff for TV.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 18 November 2003 13:10 (twenty-two years ago)

no, i think he has just directed again. S&S did a set report. i'm pretty sure. ditto antonioni, allegedly.

― enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 13:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Saraband is a TV movie.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000005/

― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 18 November 2003 13:26 (twenty-two years ago)

fair dos.

― enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 13:33 (twenty-two years ago)

two years pass...

revive... the Bos Phoenix's Gerald Peary named his 7 greatest living NARRATIVE filmmakers as Bergman, Antonioni, Godard, Altman, Herzog, Polanski, Chabrol.

He polled his readers and among 60 discrete suggestions, got "not a single vote for Steven Spielberg, Spike Lee, or Ang Lee. Nada for Pedro Almodóvar or any Spanish-language filmmaker. Or any African, Italian, or Russian one. Jane Campion was the only woman filmmaker to get more than one vote. The other female directors who made ballots: Chantal Akerman, Elaine May, Claire Denis."

http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid10519.aspx

Mine: Bergman, Godard, Ousmane Sembene, Altman, Eric Rohmer, Scorsese, Shohei Imamura.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 May 2006 18:49 (nineteen years ago)

I was just wondering about Imamura yesterday - mainly wondering if he had another film in him and hoping so. Imamura of the last decade is so good.

Mine: Sembene, Kiarostami, de Oliviera, Godard, Imamura, Hou Hsiao Hsien, Sokurov.

― TRG (TRG), Tuesday, 2 May 2006 19:54 (nineteen years ago)

Chris Marker
Brian De Palma
Agnes Varda
Abbas Kiarostami
Robert Altman
Larry Cohen
Steven Spielberg (boring, cliched caveat: only the stuff from the last five years, et al)

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 05:29 (nineteen years ago)

godard, resnais, kiarostami, altman, lynch, zhang-ke, and cronenberg (because he is fun)

i dont include the likes of bergman and antonioni because neither has made anything worth while since the 60's basically

― t0dd swiss (immobilisme), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 06:35 (nineteen years ago)

ten narrative film makers b/w 1910 and 1990:

DW Griffith
Max Olphus
Douglas Sirk
Leni Refiensthal
Akira Kurwasawa
Liliana Cavani
Ranier Fassbinder
Fellini
Wong Kar-wai
Errol Morris

another ten
victor fleming,
alfred hitchcock,
jean luc godard,
quentin tarintino,
william castle,
sergi eisenstein,
robert altman,
nicholas ray,
ernst lubitsch
werner herzog

and a last ten
george cukor,
robert bresson,
william wyler,
brian de palma,
tarkosvsky,
otto preimger,
john waters,
kieslowski,
kenneth anger,
bob fosse,
,

its utterly shameful how little women are on that list, and it tends towards domestic melodrama, i know

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 07:08 (nineteen years ago)

you actually enjoy griffith and riefenstahl?

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 09:45 (nineteen years ago)

My favourite directors working today:

Pedro Almodovar (probably the most consistently good director of the last 20 years)
Jim Jarmusch
Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Hiroyuki Tanaka aka Sabu
Hayao Miyazaki
Peter Jackson (has never made a bad film)
Ang Lee
Terry Gilliam

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:22 (nineteen years ago)

Peter Jackson (has never made a bad film)

lolololol

but he's not as bad as almodovar.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:24 (nineteen years ago)

Enrique very OTM. also: Miyazake UGH. all in all a truly awful list.

― jed_ (jed), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:33 (nineteen years ago)

Well okay, Bad Taste was kinda meh, but even The Frighteners had some great bits in it ("My body is a roadmap of pain!"). And King Kong was fun and sad.

What's wrong with Almodovar?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:43 (nineteen years ago)

i don't know where to start, really.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:45 (nineteen years ago)

early almodovar = horribly camp and yet still manages to be utterly boring. late almodovar = less camp because he's "matured" but still dull as fuck.

― jed_ (jed), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:48 (nineteen years ago)

I've never heard anyone call Almodovar dull or boring! Most of his films are fast-paced melodramas, I guess you can criticize them for being over-the-top, but "dull" isn't a word I'd use.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 10:58 (nineteen years ago)

they're only "not dull" if you find '70s sexual politics the last word in cinematic thrillage.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:00 (nineteen years ago)

Huh? How many Almodovar films deal with sexual politics? I think they're rather apolitical, i.e. queer people are just any other characters to him, not plot points.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:02 (nineteen years ago)

"just as any other"

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:02 (nineteen years ago)

Huh? How many Almodovar films deal with sexual politics? I think they're rather apolitical, i.e. queer people are just any other characters to him, not plot points.

-- Tuomas (lixnix...), May 3rd, 2006.

yeah cos in spain that's an apolitical stance.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:03 (nineteen years ago)

Good grief! No Jean-Pierre Melville on any of these lists?

― Jay Vee's Return (Manon_69), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:08 (nineteen years ago)

"over the top melodrama" is pretty much the definition of dull for me. having said that, though, i can appreciate someone like John Waters because he's pretty good at what he does.

― jed_ (jed), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:11 (nineteen years ago)

So maybe his sexual politics are still valid rather than stuck in 70's... Anyway, I can't really see your point, since I think Almodovar pretty much exemplifies a queer stance of today rather than any seventies notion towards sexuality. Would you care to elaborate on the subject?

(xx-post)

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:14 (nineteen years ago)

no, it's too boring.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:20 (nineteen years ago)

You know, man, it'd be easier to cow people into submission with your rep if you had, like, a different rep.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:24 (nineteen years ago)

yeah cos in spain that's an apolitical stance.

eh?

― Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:24 (nineteen years ago)

andrew 1: i'm not trying to cow anyone
andrew 2: ie, tuomas is being disingenuous

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:30 (nineteen years ago)

Okay, maybe apolitical was a wrong word, what I meant is that his films aren't trying to make any sort of "gays are human beings too" statement, many of his characters just happen to be queer in one sense or another, but that's not the point of the films. So yeah, portraying queer characters without making a statement of their queerness is political, but I still find your comment about 70's sexual politics mystifying.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:36 (nineteen years ago)

andrew 2: ie, tuomas is being disingenuous

He's not the one claiming that Almoldovar is self-evidently a rubbish director.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:56 (nineteen years ago)

well, no, i'm the one doing that.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 12:04 (nineteen years ago)

Make with your list, Enrique.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 12:17 (nineteen years ago)

I'm surprised the first mention of both Marker and Varda came only after my post (not sure how I forgot them on my list either, although neither are exactly narrative anymore). Varda is as good as she's ever been, and I secretly hold out hope that Marker has one more masterpiece (his short film about Tarkovsky was brilliant).

― TRG (TRG), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 12:40 (nineteen years ago)

I would put Varda first among living women (with Campion and Elaine May next), but mostly on the strength of just Cleo and Vagabond, as I'm not sure how I can resolve her nonfic work with the 'narrative' criterion.

you actually enjoy griffith and riefenstahl?

They're both essential film grammarians (and Godard has made about 3 'enjoyable' films in his career).

Second living seven: Kiarostami, Spielberg, Leigh, M Makhmalbaf, Cronenberg, Coppola, and either Polanski, Hou, Woody, Tsai or Lumet.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 12:59 (nineteen years ago)

They're both essential film grammarians

k, but who's putting actual grammarians in their list of favourite writers?

(and Godard has made about 3 'enjoyable' films in his career).

pshaw!

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 13:09 (nineteen years ago)

enrique's arbitrary 7 (so many films i like are one-offs, or two-offs or whatever):

actually naw, i'm not doing it, there's hardly any directors where i've seen everything they've done, or when they have, they haven't made very many films at all! so, y'know, 'michel gondry', 'cept that one of his two films released to date was a bit rubbish. 'alain resnais' but i've not seen 'muriel'. 'antonioni' based on too many vcr viewings.

i think linklater is the only director on my list where i've seen all of their films (except 'bad news bears').

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 13:15 (nineteen years ago)

Great Filmmakers are about where Great Novelists are, ie 96-98% dead.

I was trying to think if I left out any Outside the Usual Paradigm directors whose new work I invariably run to see, and there's one: George Kuchar (Mike K would likely be in the top 25 too).

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 4 May 2006 14:12 (nineteen years ago)

Great Filmmakers are about where Great Novelists are, ie 96-98% dead.

lols. novels have been around c. 300 years, films... 110 years. so active filmmakers from 1/3 - 1/2 of cinema history are still going.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Thursday, 4 May 2006 14:15 (nineteen years ago)

I'd also put Bela Tarr near the top.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 4 May 2006 15:21 (nineteen years ago)

Best seven living and still at or right around at their peak: Dardennes bros, Wong Kar Wai, Von Triers, Morris, Leigh, Akin, Twyker.

Best living seven (even though all but one are well past their peak): Allen, Herzog, Scorsese, Fukasaki, Wong Kar Wai, Polanski, Malick.

Best ever alive or dead:
Lang, Kubrick, Kurosawa, Melville, Hitchcock, Leone, Polanski.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 4 May 2006 15:56 (nineteen years ago)

Too be honest I am thinking that Leigh might maybe belong in the second category now.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 4 May 2006 15:57 (nineteen years ago)

What other directors from the first 1/3 of cinema history are still going outside of Manoel de Oliveira?

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 4 May 2006 17:50 (nineteen years ago)

DW Griffith's corpse still directs apparently.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 4 May 2006 17:58 (nineteen years ago)

? I didn't see him on anyone's Living list; has AT&T done an Intolerance ad?

Don't know of any '30s directors besides de Oliveira; with Robert Wise dead, I can't even think of one right now who stretches back to the '40s other than Bergman.

so active filmmakers from 1/3 - 1/2 of cinema history are still going.

Yeah, and in the last 25 years most seem as bereft of ideas as post-1970 fiction writers.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 4 May 2006 18:18 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, I can't think of any from the '40s either, but then you get to the '50s and it's a different story altogether.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 4 May 2006 18:45 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.