Arnold
The Top 100 Directors of All Time
So if you haven't seen the links circulating the web to the latest (mostly meaningless) top 100 list, Total Film magazine has released a list of the top 100 directors of all time. Now, of course, a list so huge cannot possibly please everyone, but this list was assembled by people who do not like movies... Just, briefly, to skim a few of the blatant problems with this list:
1. Michelangelo Antonioni was not included. Of course he seems a little more in the media at the moment because of his recent death, but this is one of the great directors. You can't go including Sofia Coppola, Curtis Hansen and James Whale and then deny Antonioni. Poor decision.
2. D.W. Griffith at 91 and Sergei Eisenstein at 72. With the error of Antonioni I'm grateful that these people have seen Griffith and Eisenstein, but to give them so little credit for being the incredible innovators that they were is unthinkable. There is no modern cinema without these two men. Period.
3. Total exclusion of Italian Neo-realism. Again denying the importance of some figures in film history. No Vittorio De Sica or Roberto Rossellini. This time there is no independent film without these men. John Cassavetes would not have though that he could make a film for next to nothing without the Neo-realists. (Which we can through the early work Antonioni in here as a further denial of the neo-realists.)
4. To further bash the Italian directors they have placed Federico Fellini at 67 (in my mind he is top ten material, but this should be subjective). The main issue here is the man made hoards of movies, countless numbers of them are still shown in cinema classes across the world and remain extremely important pieces of film art. (La Dolce Vita, 8 1/2, Nights of Cabiria, Amarcord, Roma, etc) The real jab at Fellini here is that people like Bryan Singer, Richard Linklater and John Carpenter are some of the names just ahead of him (65, 64, 63 respectively). Not that any of these directors are necessarily bad, but they certainly aren’t as important as Fellini, and Fellini never even thought about making the artistic compromises they have. (Which is a whole other debate, but is nonetheless relevant when deciding the BEST DIRECTORS EVER.)
5. (John Cassavetes = #60, Jean-Luc Godard = # 59) = Abomination
(Hal Ashby = # 58, Brian De Palma = #54, James Cameron = #38) = Abomination
Again the Ashby, De Palma, Cameron is not all bad (though I'm not much of a fan of De Palma) they have all made some decent movies, successful at the box office, films people remember. But seriously, we are not talking sales here, or who had star power in their films, the label is "best directors." There are truly few directors who could even begin to be considered more visionary than Cassavetes or Godard. These two are rare specimen, directors who can truly be said to have changed cinema. Ashby, De Palma and Cameron are all on the Spielberg side of the best directors, which is fine, Spielberg should be ranked as high as he is, his films aren't really art, but he changed the way people see films. So did Godard and Cassavetes, De Palma hasn't changed anything. This is not a matter of taste; this is a matter of making an arbitrary list that has no sort of standard for judgment. (Godard leads me to the exclusion of Alain Resnais as well, but I'm limiting myself to 5 reasons.)
This is just the beginning of my personal complaints about the list, but many of my complaints are subjective. These five reasons, I believe, are more objective complaints. A pure denial of the talent that has changed the way people go to theaters and the fashion in which people watch cinema.
I think there needs to be a new list made, with some reasonable criteria. Maybe a few more women involved too. Sofia Coppola over Jane Campion, Deepa Mehta and Maya Deren?
Other directors who maybe should have made it: Takeshi Kitano, Seijen Suzuki, Alain Resnais, Wes Anderson (though a long shot, but better and more prolific than Coppola), George Cuckor, Douglas Sirk, F.W. Murnau, Stan Brakhage, Maya Deren(though they've completely denied the existence of alternative forms of cinema besides the blockbuster, independent or classic), Jane Campion, Neil Jordan, Deepa Mehta, Vittorio De Sica, Matthew Barney, Hal Hartley(?), Roberto Rosselini, Guy Maddin, Jacques Rivette, Abbas Kiarostami and the list could continue...(anyone have any ideas?)
1. Michelangelo Antonioni was not included. Of course he seems a little more in the media at the moment because of his recent death, but this is one of the great directors. You can't go including Sofia Coppola, Curtis Hansen and James Whale and then deny Antonioni. Poor decision.
2. D.W. Griffith at 91 and Sergei Eisenstein at 72. With the error of Antonioni I'm grateful that these people have seen Griffith and Eisenstein, but to give them so little credit for being the incredible innovators that they were is unthinkable. There is no modern cinema without these two men. Period.
3. Total exclusion of Italian Neo-realism. Again denying the importance of some figures in film history. No Vittorio De Sica or Roberto Rossellini. This time there is no independent film without these men. John Cassavetes would not have though that he could make a film for next to nothing without the Neo-realists. (Which we can through the early work Antonioni in here as a further denial of the neo-realists.)
4. To further bash the Italian directors they have placed Federico Fellini at 67 (in my mind he is top ten material, but this should be subjective). The main issue here is the man made hoards of movies, countless numbers of them are still shown in cinema classes across the world and remain extremely important pieces of film art. (La Dolce Vita, 8 1/2, Nights of Cabiria, Amarcord, Roma, etc) The real jab at Fellini here is that people like Bryan Singer, Richard Linklater and John Carpenter are some of the names just ahead of him (65, 64, 63 respectively). Not that any of these directors are necessarily bad, but they certainly aren’t as important as Fellini, and Fellini never even thought about making the artistic compromises they have. (Which is a whole other debate, but is nonetheless relevant when deciding the BEST DIRECTORS EVER.)
5. (John Cassavetes = #60, Jean-Luc Godard = # 59) = Abomination
(Hal Ashby = # 58, Brian De Palma = #54, James Cameron = #38) = Abomination
Again the Ashby, De Palma, Cameron is not all bad (though I'm not much of a fan of De Palma) they have all made some decent movies, successful at the box office, films people remember. But seriously, we are not talking sales here, or who had star power in their films, the label is "best directors." There are truly few directors who could even begin to be considered more visionary than Cassavetes or Godard. These two are rare specimen, directors who can truly be said to have changed cinema. Ashby, De Palma and Cameron are all on the Spielberg side of the best directors, which is fine, Spielberg should be ranked as high as he is, his films aren't really art, but he changed the way people see films. So did Godard and Cassavetes, De Palma hasn't changed anything. This is not a matter of taste; this is a matter of making an arbitrary list that has no sort of standard for judgment. (Godard leads me to the exclusion of Alain Resnais as well, but I'm limiting myself to 5 reasons.)
This is just the beginning of my personal complaints about the list, but many of my complaints are subjective. These five reasons, I believe, are more objective complaints. A pure denial of the talent that has changed the way people go to theaters and the fashion in which people watch cinema.
I think there needs to be a new list made, with some reasonable criteria. Maybe a few more women involved too. Sofia Coppola over Jane Campion, Deepa Mehta and Maya Deren?
Other directors who maybe should have made it: Takeshi Kitano, Seijen Suzuki, Alain Resnais, Wes Anderson (though a long shot, but better and more prolific than Coppola), George Cuckor, Douglas Sirk, F.W. Murnau, Stan Brakhage, Maya Deren(though they've completely denied the existence of alternative forms of cinema besides the blockbuster, independent or classic), Jane Campion, Neil Jordan, Deepa Mehta, Vittorio De Sica, Matthew Barney, Hal Hartley(?), Roberto Rosselini, Guy Maddin, Jacques Rivette, Abbas Kiarostami and the list could continue...(anyone have any ideas?)
Horrorphile
Fellini's 8-and-a-half is in my top five along with Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now, Alien, and Withnail and I
Film & TV on DVD
Having Fincher, Nolan and the likes in the list is a bit redundant when they have only made a handful of films and end up above Terrence Malick..
Shame we cant just have a geek chat about it because to write my thoughts will take hours so I will end by saying I was offended at the position afforded Alan J Pakula, Don Siegel, Robert Alderich and Sam Fuller
Fantastic post Dustin, love your work!
Cool post.
Cheers
CC
And CC- I think you're right, directors like Tarantino have made themselves into an entirely new beast. The name Tarantino doesn't bring up his short list of films, it brings up the image he's created for himself and all of the young directors trying to imitate him, he's become more of a figure than an actual director.
Infognito
The Bicycle Thieves must be one of the all time great films...not to include De Sica...c'mon??!! These people are either congenital idiots, or just purile intellects who know enough to check out the records of largest grossing films...Fellini...all the Italians you mentioned...disgrace...
and you are right, Griffith and Eisenstein should be at the top, because it does suggest you take the whole issue of directing into consideration, and their artistic and technical developments.
I usually always hate these lists, I always wonder who on earth they ask in the first place, like that crap they had on channel 9, top 20, utter bullshyte!
For me, Kurosawa is tops...de Sica, Hitchcock, Polanski's Repulsion was impressive, all down hill after that era, so many I love the work of, but no, I love Speilberg's ability, but it is general release, it is not fine art, it is poster art, which is admirable, but...it is not at master piece level. And I totally disagree with many of their positions, and Woody Allen being so high, sorry, so many greats come way before his incessant repetitive self analysis!
fog
Film & TV on DVD
I was actually going the other way with my Pakula (Parallax View), Fuller (The Big Red One), Siegel (Charley Varrick) and Alderich (Whatever Happened to baby Jane), I love their work and they pioneered a style of film-making aspired too but seldom matched today. (Im not saying they should be in the top 10, but certainly ahead of the likes of Spielberg or Tarantino.
I love Fellini, Bergman, De Sica, Antonioni, Goddard etc and agree they should all be in the top 10.
Film & TV on DVD
Siegel, Alderich and Pakula etc all deserve more love
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak