Best / Most Important Directors

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Define best however you want.

"Important" is obviously more problematic. One possible criteria is historical significance, as in, "who will be seen as emblematic of this era?" Who is changing the art or the business of movie making, for better or worse? Doesn't have to be a director you personally like. (i dont think it's an obvious choice like Lucas, because his impact has already been felt)

my picks:
best - wong kar wai, malick, spielberg, claire denis

most important - tarantino (at least as a provocation), peter jackson (if king kong does well)

im not really happy with the "most important" picks though (and part of me, perversely, thinks it might be matthew barney! just wait until 20 years from now when every other films contains a reference to the cremaster cycle!)

ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 07:15 (twenty-two years ago)

oh crap i forgot! most important right now: mel gibson

ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 07:23 (twenty-two years ago)

But as pointed out on IMDB today, what's next? He's not going to do a sequel.

MI: Quentin Tarantino, obviously.

Does important mean influential? I fear we may have to include the Wachowskis. Also we live in the shadow of Emmerich/Devlin.

"When Ashley Judd stalked the earth"

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 12:36 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah im not sure the passion is something that can be repeated, but i dont doubt there will be attempts. important mainly for alerting hollywood to a previously unreachable audience--tho it will prob stay that way.

ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 17:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Ryan, are you asking, "Which current directors will later be seen as significant?"

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 22:18 (twenty-two years ago)

There are definitely a million and one ways to interpret "most important" and "best" is a completely separate category (which, again, could be based on a million and one competing criteria).

If it's in terms of influencial, you run the gambit between hacks and geniuses, because there are many bad filmmakers who influence many a bad film. and it seems obvious to pick the cinematic pioneer granddaddies like lumiere, eisenstein, vertov, griffith, melies, etc. because you could easily find an argument for how every film in history was influenced by their early works.

here's my list for most important (interpret whatever way you wish) broken down by filmmakers I love, am indifferent to, or despise--

LOVE-- Stan Brakhage, Jean-Luc Godard, Stanley Kubrick, Woody Allen, Kurosawa, Bergman, Scorsese, Cocteau, Ozu, Tarkovsky, Jarmusch, John Waters, George Kuchar, Jack Smith, Kenneth Anger, Melies, Vertov, Fellini, Fassbinder, Caveh Zahedi, David Lynch, Leighton Pierce, Gus Van Sant, Wong Kar-Wai, Jem Cohen, Bunuel, the Marx Brothers, Michael Snow, Charlie Chaplain, Buster Keaton, Jerry Lewis, Spike Lee, Lars von Trier, Harmony Korine, Peter Kubelka, Terry Gilliam, Maysles Brothers, D.A. Pennebaker, Robert Flaherty, F.W. Murnau, Maya Deren, Wes Anderson, Carol Reed.

INDIFFERENT-- Altman, Riefenstahl, Tarrantino, Soderberg, Cronenberg, Eisenstein, Sirk (only because I've never seen any of his work!), Kevin Smith, Merhige, Truffaut, Antonioni, Hitchcock, David Lean, Wyler, John Ford, Andy Warhol, David Gordon Green, John Woo, Derek Jarman, Polanski, Carl Dreyer, Busby-Berkeley musicals, Merchant/Ivory, Verhoeven, Aronofsky, Preston Sturges, Rob Reiner, De Sica, Rossellini.

HATE-- Spielberg, Lucas, Peter Jackson (although "meet the feebles" is absolute genius), Ridley Scott, Michael Bay, De Palma.

I could think of hundreds but i don't want to spend all night doing this....

jay blanchard (jay blanchard), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 23:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Ryan, are you asking, "Which current directors will later be seen as significant?"

yes that's a very good way of putting it! (i know it's a bit pointless, but, hey, this is the internet)

ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 23:26 (twenty-two years ago)

you know i just realized i meant best and most important right now without ever saying so.

ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 23:27 (twenty-two years ago)

(and Jay i'd love to read your reactions to a Sirk film)

ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 24 March 2004 23:30 (twenty-two years ago)

i seem to really like everything that's been inspired by Sirk, so I'm sure once I get around to checking them out I'll like them.

jay blanchard (jay blanchard), Thursday, 25 March 2004 01:08 (twenty-two years ago)

My choices for the "best" directors are based strictly on those who have impressed me purely with their directing talent and does not necessarily reflect my opinion of their overall body of work. Unfortunately, I have to exclude some of my favorite filmmakers, but that's the way the game goes. My picks:

Kubrick, Welles, Lumet, Tarantino, Lynch, Kurosawa, Dreyer, Ford, Leone, Hitchcock, Murnau, Polanski, Fellini

I considered adding Jacques Tourneur to the list, but I am not familiar enough with his work.

As for the "most important" directors, I assume you're talking about contemporary filmmakers who will have an indelible influence on future generations of filmmakers. I have this little theory that Wes Anderson, P.T. Anderson, and Quentin Tarantino are the "American New Wave," although I could devote completely seperate posts explaining my reasoning behind that assessment.

Anthony (Anthony F), Thursday, 25 March 2004 02:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I think we should be careful with the "most important" tag. First off, just because a film makes buckets of cash does not make the director "important". I do not think Mel Gibson will ever reach that status, no matter how many fundamentalists he gets to see his film.

Same with Jackson. I'm neither praising nor condemning the LOTR films -- they were what they were. But I don't think he changed or revolutionized cinema in any way. He may, thanks to a seemingly limitless budget, have improved on an old formula, but I don't think it's going to change the face of cinema, nor of films of that genre.

Like him or not, Tarrantino is (or at least was) important. He did change indie cinema by bridging the gap between the genre film and the 'art' film. Much like the boys of the nouvelle vague did in France in the 60's. There's an interesting chapter in the Peter Biskind book Down and Dirty Picture about the uproar that Reservoir Dogs caused at Sundance. Whereas indie cinema up to that point was primarily small dramas, here comes geek-boy with guns, violence, homophobia, etc. After RD and certainly after Pulp Fiction indie cinema changed tremendously.

A short personal "best" list: Altman, Immamura, Suzuki, Godard, Welles, Kitano, Bergman, Allen, Coen, Scorsese, Soderbergh, Hong Sang-Soo, Fassbinder. . .

While certainly not 'all' of their films are masterpieces, each of the above directors brings something new to each film they make.

I'm sure that five minutes after I send this I'll remember names I neglected. . .

BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Thursday, 25 March 2004 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

"Like him or not, Tarrantino is (or at least was) important. He did change indie cinema by bridging the gap between the genre film and the 'art' film. Much like the boys of the nouvelle vague did in France in the 60's."

The only difference being that Tarrantino was fully aware that this was exactly what he was doing, from the name of his production company on down. Of course, on a less post-modern level, the French New Wave were kitsch film hipsters themselves. I certainly appreciate his importance in the history of the cinema, but god that man irritates me more than any other human being alive!

'I think we should be careful with the "most important" tag. First off, just because a film makes buckets of cash does not make the director "important"."

good point. having ten million people go to see a movie doesn't make the film important--it's easy to draw large crowds to a film that will hold no meaning to 90% of it's audience two days after they've watched it.

jay blanchard (jay blanchard), Thursday, 25 March 2004 17:45 (twenty-two years ago)

point taken. while it's far more likely that both gibson's and jackson's movies are just anomalies, there is a possibility they will lead to some small changes.

i dont think gibson's success can be repeated, but his film is a major event, and it's going to be one of the top grossing films EVER. let that sink in. what does it mean? (maybe nothing)

i guess it's kind of depressing tho that i can think of no one who is doing really revolutionary stuff in mainstream (by that i mean non-avant garde) cinema.

ryan (ryan), Thursday, 25 March 2004 17:47 (twenty-two years ago)

ha now that everyone has taken "best" to mean "best all time" (my fault obviously) my list looks pathetic!

ryan (ryan), Thursday, 25 March 2004 17:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Best director of all time Orson Wells
Best Director of today Peter Jackson
Most Influential Ever Alfred Hitchcock
Most Influential Now Kevin Smith, he brings a whole new meaning to the term writer/director

ConnorHawke (ConnorHawke), Friday, 26 March 2004 00:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Is ConnorHawke Kevin Smith? Maybe Jason Mewes or Ben Affleck?

BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Friday, 26 March 2004 06:34 (twenty-two years ago)

"i dont think gibson's success can be repeated, but his film is a major event, and it's going to be one of the top grossing films EVER. let that sink in. what does it mean? (maybe nothing)"

it really doesn't, unless you interpret the value of cinema to be nothing more than sociological and economical.

"i guess it's kind of depressing tho that i can think of no one who is doing really revolutionary stuff in mainstream (by that i mean non-avant garde) cinema. "

i don't think it's quite that bad--you may have to look outside of the U.S. film industry, but there are plenty of important evolutions going on in mainstream cinema. Even in the U.S., I think Harmony Korine & D.G. Green are two good examples. But if you're looking for revolutionary, it really is only going to be found in the realm of avant-garde/experimental/underground film--and usually anything that seems "cutting-edge" in a mainstream/Hollywood production has been appropriated from an AG film anyhow.

jay blanchard (jay blanchard), Saturday, 27 March 2004 17:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I think Wong Kar Wai will definitely be looked back on as significant, both in terms of quality, consistency and also that his work is so far removed from the rest of HK cinema.

Miike will be long remembered as well (although his prolificness / hit 'n' miss ratio might work against him)

Mil, Friday, 2 April 2004 22:56 (twenty-one years ago)

LOVE-- Stan Brakhage, Jean-Luc Godard, Stanley Kubrick, Woody Allen, Kurosawa, Bergman, Scorsese, Cocteau, Ozu, Tarkovsky, Jarmusch, John Waters, George Kuchar, Jack Smith, Kenneth Anger, Melies, Vertov, Fellini, Fassbinder, Caveh Zahedi, David Lynch, Leighton Pierce, Gus Van Sant, Wong Kar-Wai, Jem Cohen, Bunuel, the Marx Brothers, Michael Snow, Charlie Chaplain, Buster Keaton, Jerry Lewis, Spike Lee, Lars von Trier, Harmony Korine, Peter Kubelka, Terry Gilliam, Maysles Brothers, D.A. Pennebaker, Robert Flaherty, F.W. Murnau, Maya Deren, Wes Anderson, Carol Reed.


..... ewww. It really is as pretentious as it looks.

JesusMaryChain, Sunday, 11 April 2004 20:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Best director of all time: Alfred Hitchcock

Best "cult" director of all time: George Romero

Best Director of today: Martin Scorsese

Most Influential Ever: Sheesh - David Lean? Hitchcock? Griffiths? Lang? Welles? I'll go with Hitchcock.

Most Influential Now: Quentin Tarantino. Obviously.

CRW (CRW), Sunday, 11 April 2004 21:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I'ma fill this out totally word association and see what pops up...

Best director of all time: Samuel Fuller
Best "cult" director of all time: Ted V. Mikels
Best Director of today: Brian De Palma
Most Influential Ever: Andy Warhol
Most Influential Now: that guy who remade The Ring... Gore Verbinski

Eric H. (Eric H.), Sunday, 18 April 2004 06:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Ted V. Mikels?

CRW (CRW), Sunday, 18 April 2004 11:21 (twenty-one years ago)

yep.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Sunday, 18 April 2004 13:13 (twenty-one years ago)


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