The Top Ten Greatest Directors of All Time
by Ben ShapiroLast week, I stirred some folks up with my Top Ten Most Overrated Directors of All Time. To recap, they were: Ridley Scott, Michael Mann, David Lean, Darren Aronofsky, Mike Nichols, David Lynch, Quentin Tarantino, Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, and Alfred Hitchcock. And by “stirred some folks up,” I mean faced down a virtual lynch mob. Who knew that Aronofsky supporters were fans of the film Fury?
A few quick items in response to that piece. First, it was not about “bad directors” (although some were plain bad, including Aronofsky), but about overrated directors. Alfred Hitchcock is nowhere near the worst director ever (I was probably too harsh to label him “slightly better than mediocre”), but it is a travesty to label him the greatest director of all time, as so many have. The same holds true for David Lean (I appreciate Great Expectations, Brief Encounter, and swaths of Bridge Over the River Kwai, I just think he doesn’t deserve to make the top 20 list). Second, I neglected three directors who clearly should have made the list: Roman Polanski (somebody stop the Chinatown cult!), Spike Lee (how can he make race relations this dull?), and Tim Burton (damn you for ruining Sweeney Todd). Third, two corrections:
(1) Rebecca and Suspicion are the same film, not Notorious and Rebecca; (2) the Orlando Bloom reference was to Black Hawk Down, not G.I. Jane, and I apologize for the obvious mix-up.
Now, to the real question: the top-ten greatest directors of all time. This is truly a rough decision – there are at least two score great directors who could make this list. Here is my one basic criteria: directors who provide me the most viewing pleasure over the course of their career. That means telling a great story in the best possible way. Subjective? Sure. Deal with it. I’ll admit that this list skews toward older directors, not because older movies are generally better than newer movies (though I think they are), but because directors in the period 1920-1960 generally made more movies, which means more opportunities for directors to shine.
I’ll start by explaining why certain directors are not in the top ten.
Francis Ford Coppola: He had a period of unbelievable creative magic. Within a ten year period, he made Finian’s Rainbow (1968), a charming musical; The Godfather (1972), which requires no commentary; The Conversation (1974), perhaps the creepiest movie ever made; The Godfather: Part II (1974), which matches its predecessor in quality; and Apocalypse Now (1979), a mad journey into the heart of darkness. Then he was done. How this talented filmmaker went from The Godfather to the atrocity that was Jack (1996) is utterly bewildering. It was tough to keep him off the top ten list. It was even harder to boot someone from that list to make room for him.
Peter Jackson: I believe Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy to be the finest directorial effort of all time, surpassing even Citizen Kane. That said, Jackson hasn’t done anything else. King Kong was overlong and CGI-obsessed. He has shown that he can produce with the best of them – District 9 is brilliant – but he needs to direct more great movies before he belongs in the top ten.
Christopher Nolan: I believe Nolan will one day make the top-ten list. He’s that talented. Watch one of his early efforts, Following (1998) if you don’t believe me – on a budget of $6,000, he creates a taut thriller. His last five movies have all been terrific: Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight. He is one of the few modern directors for whom I check the IMDB calendar to see when his next movie comes out. I look forward to Inception with bated breath. For now, however, it’s too early to chart his trajectory with certainty.
Orson Welles: Citizen Kane requires no explication – it is justifiably seen by many as the greatest directorial job ever. His Othello is similarly creative and inspired. The Magnificent Ambersons follows the pattern. But Welles destroyed himself and his career, and the fates should never forgive him for wasting his unparalleled talent.
Peter Weir: I love Weir. He is always creative and interesting. Although I didn’t enjoy Master and Commander as much as others, The Truman Show, Fearless, and Gallipoli are all minor masterpieces. As far as the top ten, my heart says maybe, my brain says no.
Stanley Kubrick: Overrated. Yes, he directed the wonderful Paths of Glory, Spartacus, and Dr. Strangelove, but 2001: A Space Odyssey is an abomination, A Clockwork Orange doesn’t hold up, The Shining is made a parody by Jack Nicholson’s scenery-chewing. He’s inconsistent, and that’s what knocks him off the list, as it should.
Vincente Minnelli: The best director of musicals of all time came close to making the list, too. Meet Me in St. Louis is delightful. An American in Paris is a joy for the senses. The Band Wagon is the best parody of Broadway ever made; Brigadoon is pretty if unfaithful to the source material (they cut a couple of the best songs from the Broadway version); Gigi is gorgeous; Lust for Life is well-done. Few directors have Minneli’s grasp of the music that film can be, the vibrancy that film can create. Again, this is just a case of ten being too few to fit him.
Fritz Lang: M is the best foreign language film ever made. Period. It is tight and tense and incredibly driving. Metropolis is fantastic too. Perhaps if I’d seen more Lang, I’d put him up in the top ten (the only other films I’ve seen of his are Fury and The Big Heat), so I’ll claim ignorance here.
Fred Zinneman: Perhaps the best conventional director of all time – a man who simply puts on camera what needs to be there. He’s not the artist that any of the top ten are, but he did create The Day of the Jackal, A Man for All Seasons, Oklahoma!, From Here to Eternity, and High Noon, a list to be reckoned with.
Victor Fleming: How hard was it to come up with this list? I had to leave off the guy who directed Captains Courageous, The Good Earth, The Wizard of Oz, some of Gone with the Wind, A Guy Named Joe, and Treasure Island. He also directed lots of films that ain’t quite as great, so his percentage is what keeps him off the list.
Stanley Donen: Stylistically, Donen was tops. He directed On the Town, Singin’ in the Rain, Charade, Damn Yankees!, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, and Two for the Road. The pure fun that is Seven Brides could put him on the top ten list. But Donen just can’t knock anyone else off.
Robert Rossen: His resume is simply too short. Three fantastic movies: Body and Soul, All the King’s Men, The Hustler. A great career. Not a top ten one.
John Huston: The best adventure director of all time, responsible for The Man Who Would Be King, Moby Dick, The African Queen, and The Maltese Falcon. Again, not enough versatility to put him over the top.
George Stevens: Tough to keep off the list, tough to make room. The Diary of Anne Frank, Shane, A Place in the Sun, I Remember Mama, Gunga Din – versatility, certainly, brilliance, certainly, sweetness, certainly. Off the list? Hesitantly, yes.
The Top Ten Greatest Directors of All Time
10. Steven Spielberg: This will be the most controversial pick on the list, to be sure. He’s got big hits, and he’s got big misses. His hits are clearly terrific – Raiders of the Lost Ark, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Schindler’s List, Jaws, Saving Private Ryan. His misses are pure awfulness – A.I., 1941, The Terminal, and the misery that was Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Of late, far more misses than hits. Still, that early canon of films, plus Schindler’s and Saving Private Ryan puts him over the top. No better popcorn filmmaker has ever been born. Yes, I hate his politics. But his artistry, when he’s at the top of his game and when he’s comfortable with the script, is unmistakable. Watch this scene again:
–
Nobody – nobody – directs action better. And Schindler’s List proved he can do drama, too. Is he the deepest guy on the list? Nope. Does he belong here? I say, yes.
–
9. Michael Curtiz: How can I possibly put the man who directed the monstrous farce that is Mission to Moscow on this list? Because he also directed Casablanca, the best movie of all time; White Christmas and Yankee Doodle Dandy, two of the best musicals; The Adventures of Robin Hood, one of the best adventure movies; Mildred Pierce, one of the best melodramas. Other films: The Sea Wolf, Angels with Dirty Faces, and Captain Blood. Renting his film canon, Mission to Moscow aside, is almost entirely wonderful.
–
8. Ingmar Bergman: No one made images like Bergman. The Seventh Seal is easily the darkest movie ever made, and it’s got some of the most stirring pictures ever put on screen. His version of The Magic Flute is a delight. Then there are his others, like Fanny and Alexander, Through a Glass Darkly, The Virgin Spring. Do you watch Bergman for a laugh? Not unless by laughter you mean suicidal depression. But no finer image-maker has ever stood behind a camera.
–
7. Billy Wilder: Nobody ever mixed drama and comedy like Wilder. And he was a master at getting great performances from his actors. Jack Lemmon was his muse, and he used him to the fullest: he made the ultimate Matthau/Lemmon comedy in The Fortune Cookie, the ultimate Lemmon comedy, Some Like It Hot, and the beautifully understated The Apartment. If Lemmon wasn’t his muse, William Holden was – and he’s got masterpieces like Sunset Blvd. and Stalag 17 to prove it. Or maybe it was Audrey Hepburn – Sabrina, and Love in the Afternoon. And that isn’t even looking at Witness for the Prosecution and Double Indemnity. The guy was a classics factory. And all of them are fast-moving and fun to watch.
–
6. Charlie Chaplin: It would be a crime to leave Chaplin off this list. Watch him toss around the globe as Hitler in The Great Dictator and tell me who you’d put in his place. The Kid is as affecting as any movie ever made. Modern Times is chock full of amazing sequences, and so are Modern Times, The Gold Rush, and many of his others. The silent movie era was never so magnificent.
–
5. Frank Capra: In my review of the top ten most overrated directors of all time, I wrote this about Martin Scorsese: “In the musical Damn Yankees, a group of hapless baseball players sing the following lyric: ‘You’ve gotta have heart / All you really need is heart!’ Martin Scorsese never saw that musical. His films are entirely devoid of anything resembling likable characters. They are cold and calculating and ruthless – and boring.” If Scorsese is the epitome of the heartless director, Capra is the embodiment of heart on screen. It’s a Wonderful Life is simply the most heartfelt movie ever made (and it’s Jimmy Stewart’s best performance). From It Happened One Night to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to Meet John Doe to Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, nobody made movie magic like Capra. If you can sit through all his films without crying and smiling simultaneously, I’m betting there’s something wrong with your tear ducts or your cheek muscles.
–
4. Elia Kazan: Reviled by the Hollywood left, Kazan was also one of Hollywood’s greatest directors. His IMDB reads like a top ten list of films: A Face in the Crowd, East of Eden, On the Waterfront, Viva Zapata!, A Streetcar Named Desire, Gentleman’s Agreement, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. The performances Kazan elicited from his actors are groundbreaking and astonishing. Unlike some others on this list, Kazan’s films do not date (other than Gentleman’s Agreement, perhaps) – they remain timely and prescient. And they’re quick-moving and entertaining, which is tough to do with heavy drama. He does it with ease.
–
3. John Ford: The man revolutionized movie making, and is worshipped widely for all the right reasons. First off, the Western is the American genre, and Ford was the best. Name the best Westerns of all time, and you’ll be sure to come up with Stagecoach, The Searchers, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. The Informer is an early masterpiece, and there’s no movie more fun than The Quiet Man (plus, the cinematography is enough to bring a tear to your eye). Mister Roberts is a chock full of great performances (Lemmon and Cagney stand out, of course). How Green Was My Valley is a beautiful film. The Grapes of Wrath and Young Mr. Lincoln are rightly credited with making Henry Fonda the quintessential American actor.
–
2. Akira Kurosawa: Nobody plumbed the depths of human emotion like Kurosawa. Ikiru is known by few outside the film buff community, but it is a masterful expression of human hope and tragedy. Ran is exciting and thrilling and brilliant. Throne of Blood is a wonderful adaptation of Macbeth. The Seven Samurai is tremendous, an adventurous expose of the best and worst mankind has to offer. Rashomon is a groundbreaking exploration of perspective. I could keep going, but there’s no point – few will argue with Kurosawa’s placement on this list.
–
1. William Wyler: Underrated beyond all rationality, Wyler was a master of all genres. He covered gothic romance (Wuthering Heights), period pieces (Jezebel) light comedy (How to Steal a Million and Roman Holiday), film noir (The Desperate Hours and Detective Story), epic (Ben Hur), morality tale (Friendly Persuasion), horror (The Collector), western (The Westerner) and wartime drama (Mrs. Miniver and The Best Years of Our Lives). His first tier films are unmatched (Dodsworth, Ben Hur, and The Best Years of Our Lives deserve to make anyone’s top ten list), and his second tier films (The Big Country, The Heiress) are better than most first-rate directors’ first-tier films. If you don’t believe Wyler’s range, watch these three scenes back to back:
–
–
–
That’s not even the best scene from The Best Years of Our Lives (the movie contains perhaps the most beautiful love scene in screen history, between Harold Russell and Cathy O’Donnell – and, in a lesson to Aronofsky and Lynch, he didn’t need to show T&A to do it).
Whom would you put on the list?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
265 Comments
Nice to see The Truman Show get some love.
Re: Coppola – the man was certainly on a role, then he had to make One from the Heart and lose all his money. The film is interesting to watch (once) and has some decent songs (courtesy of Tom Waits) but it's not good at all.
Re: Spielberg – probably the most successful filmmaker of my generation (I'm 27). And regardless of where his politics might lie, his influence is undeniable. Besides, how many times have Jaws, E.T., and Raiders all been parodied? His last few films (especially Crystal Skull) have been lacking but I still think he's got another classic or two up his sleeve. I wouldn't say he's the best action director but, strictly in terms of camera placement, movement, blocking, etc., he's one of the greatest.
Re: Jackson – have you seen Heavenly Creatures? Highly recommended. (And from the reviews I've read of The Lovely Bones, it seems that Peter Jackson circa 1994 would've done a better job than Peter Jackson circa 2009).
Re: Kubrick – I haven't seen his earliest films but I don't think the man has made a bad movie, my favorites being Dr. Strangelove and Barry Lyndon. Eyes Wide Shut isn't great but I'm still kinda conflicted over it.
Re: Wyler – director Nicholas Meyer relates an interesting anecdote in the Star Trek II audio commentary (I'm paraphrasing): "Someone once asked Billy Wilder whom he thought was the greatest director and his answer was 'William Wyler.' When the interviewer asked 'Why?' Wyler said, 'Because he was stupid. He knew he couldn't just go in and make it all up on the spot. He knew he'd have to do the work.'"
Oh my goodness: William Wyler YES.
Spielberg: a resounding, thudding, you've got to be kidding me NO NO NO NO NO. I can't name a single movie this guy's made, even ones that I found over-all entertaining, that hold up throughout the entire film, let alone through the ages. He has yet to end a movie where I'm not going, "Wait a minute!" For example, his action-serial homage hero rides half way across the ocean, outside of a submarine no less, only to be strapped to a pole with his girl and then not he, but HE (GOD) saves the day. Talk about the ultimate Deus ex Machina. And then the put the arc in a warehouse. Uh huh. That's just Sci-Fi Channel inept story telling.
Vincente Minnelli, Fritz Lang, Fred Zinneman, Victor Fleming, Robert Rossen, George Stevens, Stanley Donen, and John Huston easily trounce SS in terms of excellence per film over many decades.
And frankly, any list that doesn't include Robert Wise, well, that's just pathetic, bro.
Re: Raiders – I think the filmmakers cut something which explained how Indy was able to ride the sub all the way to the island. Scroll to the bottom: http://www.theraider.net/films/raiders/deleted_sc...
But you hit on something interesting. Someone on another forum once asked, "Why did Indy have to be in the movie at all?" And he was right. If Indy didn't exist, the Nazis still would've obtained the ark, opened it, and had their faces melted off anyway! (I'm biased because I love the first three Indy films equally.)
Good call on Robert Wise.
You also neglected to give shout-outs to Sam Fuller and John McTiernan.
Nolte, not Noble. Sorry.
1 of 2
The Godfather is a great movie. A couple of nights ago, I was watching a 1 vs 100 rerun. The host asked the contestant, "Do you want the money or the mob?" I do a Brando imitation in my head and think/shout, "Give me the mob. When I finish, they are all gonna sleep with the fishes (probably a Puzo line).
Nevertheless, the 60s/70s were the years that serious deconstruction of traditional America was in full swing. Coppola was young and obviously romanticized the dark side of his Italian heritage. All we needed was to portray the hoods who were supplying drugs as good guys. I know in the film, the thing that distinguished the Corleones from the other gangsters was that the Brando/Godfather hated drugs, but that was in reality nearly complete bullsh*t.
Along with John Sturges, who directed The Magnificent Seven AND The Great Escape.
Come to think of it, where are Howard Hawks, Don Siegel, Andrew V. McLaglen, Henry Hathaway, J. Lee Thompson. Not even on the "not putting on the top 10 list?"
Grab a TIVO and use it.
Ditto that.
Apparently, Ben Shaprio has NEVER HEARD OF HOWARD HAWKS.
I agree that Casablanca may be the best movie of all time, (though I'd argue it's the Godfather I and II) but if you're going to talk about which director conquered more genres with more masterpieces, then the director of Scarface, Only Angels Have Wings, Bringing up Baby, Red River, Rio Bravo, Sergeant York, His Girl Friday, Hatari, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, The Thing from Another World, To Have and Have Not, Ball of Fire, and The Dawn Patrol etc etc, must at LEAST be dealt with, not ignored.
But, I'm glad to see William Wyler near, if not at, the top. Too few lists have him in the Top 5 where he MUST be.
Lord of the Rings trilogy the finest directorial effort of all time? Really? Sweeping vista after sweeping vista after sweeping vista with the relentless overuse of closeups. Yes, I need to see Gandolf's giant 10 foot nose on the screen. Not impressed.
I would put Spielberg in the group that p#ssed away their talent. Like most directors of his generation his work has been poisoned by the incomprehenisble need to start making "message films" or to inject politics into any and everything he does. He's substituted activism in his filmmaking with making a good film.
Wyler didn't direct the chariot race in Ben Hur – Andrew Marton did. Ben Hur is two good sequences separated by hours of tedium. Given the choice, would you honestly rather watch it than 'North by Northwest', the film that Hitchcock made in the same year (1959)?
Akira Kurosawa directed a movie called "High and Low". It is the best thriller movie about police procedures and finding the bad guy the right way.
J. Lee Thompson made too many horrible movies from the 70s on after the great Guns of Navarone, Cape Fear and Flame over India. Death Wish 4, might not even be the worst of them! McLaglen was solid at BEST, but Seigel and Hathaway should have at LEAST made the kiss off list– but Hawks MUST make this list. And Keaton beats the crap out of Chaplin.
I have no great arguments with your assessments.
Kazan! Good to see him on the list. For people of a certain age (like me) On The Waterfront and Brando's performance in it, well, they defined us. "I coulda been a contenda." God did that strike a chord.
My problem with Spielberg is that there is something incurably jejune about him that permeates everything (yes, including Schindler's List) he has directed.
Slight caveats: I wish Zinneman, if for nothing other than his consummate professionalism, had made the cut.
And Rossen. The Hustler is so great, the greatest definition and defense of the worth of artistry (for that's what Fast Eddie and Minnesota Fats are, artists) in the final equation of who wins and who loses. For that film alone…
Movies were made before 1930, ya know. Yes, you mentioned Chaplin, but half of his films you praised were in the sound era. Where is D.W. Griffith or Allan Dwan? These men were prolific pioneers who created techniques that enabled later directors to make your list.
"2001: A Space Odyssey is an abomination"
wow… between this post and the "overrated" post, this may be the most asinine quote
Not sure I'd be that hard on Shapiro or Coppola. I do agree, however, that writers and directors – moviemakers in general – sometimes sacrifice truth and morality for the sake of drama and controversy. They bend the truth because it's not interesting enough. They invert morality to "explore the idea" or "start a conversation" – or sometimes just because they can.
I guess it's all about creativity. Hollywood is, after all, the great fantasy factory. "Reality" is clay in the hands of filmmakers. I get steamed when they take liberties with history, for example, but it's their prerogative.
This is frightening – I actually agree with your top choice, my favorite director of all time. I would disagree that The Heiress is second tier, it's just a brilliant film. And I'd add WIld River to your list of great Kazan movies.
And he made "Goonies."
Great to see Wyler get some recognition. The man really did have range.
Now for the much to be expected carping:
Oh, and speaking of range…Howard "Freaking" Hawks is quite a surprising omission. No love for Buster Keaton either?
Busby Berkeley deserves an honorable mention for all his pre-code "Golddigger" and "Dames' movies with his astonishing choreography and gritty depression era stories.
You sir are a pretentious little twit with about as much life experience as a tadpole. I know this is an opinion piece I can understand that but running off some names of some old directors, a few nobody has heard of puts you on the list of the same weenies that put out top ten music lists and mention indie rock bands. You seem to think if "I mention old movies,directors" that you know you would never watch unless it was mandatory viewing in school that it will some how prove you belong on big hollywood. Generational sell out. Lastly I do like you other stuff you write, so though keep up the good work!
On the topic of Tim Burton:
I'm not the huge Burton fan that I used to be, but I really have to say that Batman Returns is a woefully underrated film. It irks me that people treat Batman Begins as the first superhero flick to deal with mature issues, when really Burton and Sam Hamm beat Nolan to the punch by over a decade.
Amen to Sturges. Watched Ice Station Zebra last evening, not Sturges' best, but a fun watch nonetheless.
Cannot complain about any of the directors on your list, except for perhaps Chaplin. Great? Sure, but IMHO, he belongs more on the overrated list than on this one. You mentioned the globe scene in The Great Dictator. That scene did nothing for me. "You Nazty Spy!" by the Three Stooges was better war satire/parody. Moe's manic Hitler was tops.
The thing about Wyler is that since he directed more actors/actresses to Oscars, he gets overshadowed. His films are remembered for who is on the screen, not who put them there.
Your overrated directors list should be your top ten director list with John Ford and Howard Hawks put at numbers 1 and 2. You have to stop before people think Big Hollywood is satire and not serious.
The whole point of these lists seems to be to generate a lively conversation in the replies and putting a lot of controversial entries on the lists and making controversial comments about the entries is a sure way to do that.
How does Sam Peckinpah not make this list? Speilberg is soo overated.
Well, my favorite director was Preston Sturges. I'm not arguing that he should be tops on your list of ten, but he is tops on mine.
[...] more here: The Top Ten Greatest Directors of All Time This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I agree!
I get so much s— from my friend for Batman Returns (and to a lesser extent, the first film). I enjoy the Nolan films and I know Burton and Co. didn't really feel the need to follow the comic 100% but I enjoy those films very much. My friend (who grew up reading the Frank Miller comics) even sat me down one day and asked, "Scott, why do you like Batman Returns? What is so entertaining about it?!?" I should've quoted John Nolte and said, "It casts a spell!"
I would swap Spielberg with Kubrick because Kubrick has had far fewer misses throughout his career. You can even compare the two in the same movie – A.I. You can pick out the portions between the two, and Kubrick's stand up better. It's Spielberg's urge to get schmaltzy as he always does when he films a movie involving kids and the emotionally draining deux ex machina at the end that will keep me from seeing the movie ever again.
Glad someone pointed this out. The chariot race is by far the best thing about Ben-Hur, and Wyler had little to do with it. On the other hand, all the tedious, maudlin, saccharine parts of the movie were directed by Wyler, so if the whole "healing of the lepers" thing works for you, Wyler is your man.
"I believe Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy to be the finest directorial effort of all time, surpassing even Citizen Kane. "
*choke*
If you're going to go ga-ga for PJ, at least cite Heavenly Creatures or that faux documentary he made for New Zealand TV. Lord of the Rings was a big noisy pile of special effects. Entertaining, yes. A directorial masterpiece? You might as well list Michael Bay in the Top Ten.
Hey Breitbart and Nolte, maybe you should actually look at the crap this guy writes before you post it. His "subjective" opinion on directors is an embarrassment to your site. It was obviously written to attract attention to himself and has no place here.
Has no one here heard of Jean Renoir? Or Fellini? Or De Sica? Or Ophuls? Or Duvivier? Or Rene Clair? Or Murnau? Or Pabst? Or Satyajit Ray? Very provincial.
RME
I'm glad to see Spielberg on the list. Despite what some of the posters have said, there is NO better craftsman in the HISTORY of film. I mean that. To explain:
In terms of pure cinematic artistry, a "bad' Spielberg film is STILL better than anyone else's "best" movie.
Because NOBODY understands FILM GRAMMAR better than Spielberg. Nobody.
Every camera move, every performance, every edit is EXACTLY right. Always. That's pure genius.
Again, he's made "bad" movies. There's no disputing that.
But they're bad simply because of one of two reasons: 1.) the script was lacking or 2.) because he let his ridiculous leftist policies seep into the film. Or both.
Even a "bad" film like Munich was bad because of its leftist politics. But from a purely directorial craft perspective, "Munich" is genius.
"Crystal Skull"? BAD script. Really bad. Spielberg's DIRECTING? Top form. Brilliant.
Even in his old age, he truly improves from film to film, which is amazing and why I always eagerly anticipate the next Spielberg film: even if the film as a whole misfires because of script or politics or both, I can still ALWAYS COUNT ON Spielberg putting on a clinic as a director.
And that's inspiring.
Answer to that is easy…it's not always the destination, it's sometimes the journey. Indiana Jones had a awesome journey. Not everything has to have a point or reason. Such is life.
I agree. My 1st first thought "Geez, he's doubling down on stupid."
Anyone can say sillyness like…."2001: A Space Odyssey is an abomination" . And then not support the statement. I can go anywhere for that. Shapiro is moving onto my "skip his posts" list since it's becoming pointless to read him.
Concerning Kazan, why is "Baby Doll" never mentioned? It is one of the best American comedies surprisingly from a director not much noted for a sense of humor.
I'm not qualified enough to comment on the list.
Speilberg? That I can. It's called 'throwing meat to a pack of wolves." Woof woof.
I long ago came to the conclusion that internet top ten lists were good for nothing but pissing people off.
I am not saying that either are evil. Coppola was young and inexperienced when he made the Godfather. I knew young guys who admired the Italian mob. Shapiro is young and inexperienced now. However, I doubt that either of them had a sister who had been raped at gunpoint by a Mafioso or whose parents who owned a local mom and pop business that were told to pay for protection or die. Neither while walking to school saw the body of the guy who opposed the union leader tossed at the door of the union hall.
Socrsese opened the door to the truth. On ideological grounds alone, he is way above Coppola on any great directors list. Coppola can make his movie. Shapiro can make his list. I can make my disagreement.
IMO, Shapiro has lived his youth in film studies and since he calls Scorsese heartless appears unable to face the reality of the word he uses. Where is the Godfather when you need him?, shaking Johnny Fontaine, demanding that he, “Be a man.”
Another wild card director to consider would be Terry Gilliam. Brazil, 12 Monkeys and Tideland are masterfully put together and take you to places you'd never imagine, and he's also got brilliant but flawed works like The Adventures of Baron Munchausen that are usually hurt not by his own ineptitude but the wiles and ignorance of his producers.
It's an opinion piece. The author threw his opinions out for comment. Some I agree, some I don't . In the end, I really don't worry too much about the director.
But then, I'm as artistic as I am tactful, and I have the tact of a jackhammer
On what planet where people actually know a little something about movies has William Wyler ever been underrated? Seriously, a few weeks of watching TCM will make you aware of how good and appreciated he is. Sorry kid, but your film knowledge is flimsy at best. It feels like you read the syllabus for Film 101 and the b u lls **ted your final. True, everyone has a right to their opinion, but on a site specializing in film, I expect a higher level of film commentary.
Other than the both starred Joan Fontaine, and were directed by Alfred Hitchcock, and both have one word titles, how on earth are Rebecca and Superstition the "same film"?
P.S.: Please tell me you knew that there would be a shitstorm after that first list.
Thanks- that puts your other list in better perspective- one thing your choices clearly show though is that you're old !
That's only because it's entirely based on a Ed McBain novel. The best writer of police procedurals ever.
To Ben Shapiro – These are fun lists and inspire hours of pleasurable debate on the best, worst and most overrated. For example – Where the hell is Robert Wise? He is one of the very best directors in film history sporting a resume that includes every type of movie and every type of character. Much like Fred Zinneman (excellent pick) Wise was a consumate craftsman and superb cinematic storyteller. For what it's worth (not much in my case) I'd give him Chaplin's place since all of Charlie's films should so self-conscious you may as well have a placard on them saying "Great Artist at Work."
One thing we can all agree on. Ray Teal,( featured above in the "Best Years of Our Lives") clip was one of the best chaacter heavies in movies fromt he 1940's and 1950's. His bit here with Harold Russell is a masterpiece of nastiness. Nobody played corrupt cops ("Ace int he Hole") or brutal prison guards ("Brute Force") like Teal. Apparantly he was pretty fair sxophonist and bandleader too.
A friend and I were watching Close Encounters and I suggested that Spielberg's heyday was really the 1980s. He's came out of nowhere with Jaws – and what made that movie so good was that the mechanical shark was giving them so much trouble and Spielberg had to resort to a tactic that "bad director" (Hitchcock) used – the audience's imagination and anticipation.
I believe to be on a top 10 list one should have great works from the beginning to the end of your career -
Orson Welles?
To paraphrase Peter Griffin:
"It was the goddam sled. There I just saved you 3 hours of torture."
Rebecca and Suspicion are NOT the same movie either, but getting warmer, they both feaure big houses and distant husbands.
These pieces are awful, can we not have any more?
RE: Curtiz and "Mission to Moscow."
You are aware that Curtiz spent his entire career working within the studio system. It's not like he had script control or could choose his projects.
I hate to quote Martin Scorsese, because I don't particularly like him or his work, but he is extremely knowledgeable about film.
"Stanley Kubrick is the father of modern cinema — we (filmmakers) are all sons and daughters of Stanley Kubrick."
I agree.
I agree with many others on the egregiousness of omitting Howard Hawks. I think you're going to have to somehow justify his absence in your next critique. I mean, come on: Red River, The Big Sleep, Sergeant York, The Big Sky, Twentieth Century, To Have and Have not?
Also, you should have discussed Gregory La Cava somewhere for "My Man Godfrey" in your congenial inquisition – it is a genuinely ageless comedy with a strikingly serious undercurrent of hard times.
McTiernan: Die Hard, Hunt For Red October, Predator. Enough said — good call.
I don't see any mention anywhere of some of my favorite directors:
1. Don Siegel, who directed some of the greatest movies of all time, such as "Hell is for Heroes", "The Shootist", "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (the original), and his true masterpiece, "Dirty Harry."
2. Robert Aldrich, who did the classic "The Longest Yard", "The Dirty Dozen" and "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?"
3. Henry Hathaway, who directed the Duke in his Oscar-winning role in "True Grit."
In defense of Mr. Shapiro to all his critics (and they are legion):
If you had the opportunity to pen a list of your top ten directors, you would generate as much controversy and disagreement as he has. As a previous poster said, "Top ten lists are created to piss people off." May I add, they are also created to stir up a lively, interesting debate. In this, Mr. Shapiro has been wildly successful.
Believe it or not, I've been demanded to explain my affection for Batman Returns as well. My response was something along the lines of, "Because I like Batman, and I like Richard III. Put 'em both together, and you have a recipe for success."
At any rate, it's good to know that other folks still remember and appreciate the grandeur of Burton's Batman flicks!
First, Ben, I will concede, I was too harsh against you on Hitchcock, I hope you can forgive.
But you are still wrong.
Spielberg peaked in the early nineties with Jurassic Park and Schindler's List. LOST WORLD had its moments, such as the tall grass raptor chase. But after that it was downhill with a few great moment (D-Day scene in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN*). He became overrated when he, like Lucas, started to buy too much into his own hype. MINORITY REPORT and WAR OF THE WORLDS are good, but pale in comparison to his early work and INDY IV, well, I could never get out of my mind that this was a Sci-Fi Channel tv-movie. His seventies and eighties works (Indy, Jaws, ET, Close Encounters, etc.) are classics that a generation thinks of when they think of the Joy of Film.
*SAVING PRIVATE RYAN: I have heard some conservatives rail against this so I will have to give it a second viewing as I have not seen it in several years. But the D-DAY scene ranks as one of the greatest battle scenes of all time.
(cont.)
Akira Kurosawa: SEVEN SAMURAI was awesome. KAGEMUSHA was great (and beautifully shot, the COLORS!) but needed an editor willing to tell Kurosawa to go $%#@ himself.
Chaplin: Always charming, always enjoyable.
John Ford: Amazing director.
Peter Jackson: LOTR fan here. His movies introduced me to the classic trilogy. Loved LOTR. KING KONG was to long (rhyme!).
Coppola: GODFATHER Part I was great. Never seen 2 or 3. OUTSIDERS was a ecent film too. DRACULA was a disappointment in so many ways (Why put the reincarnated dead girlfriend into it? Why make Mina a slut? Why make Dracula lovesick? A waste of Hopkins and Oldman.).
William Wyler: BEN-HUR and ROMAN HOLIDAY are the only ones of his I have seen and was disappointed by neither.
Well now we can understand your previous list. You are anti-auteur. Which is okay. I actually agree with alot of your picks. Ford, Kurosawa and Wilder on on my top 5 directors list (along with Huston and Hitchcock). And I was really glad to see you mention Ikiru (the greatest film no one talks about).
Those are all greats, too. But you'd be taken more seriously if you said "Why aren't these greats on the list" instead of the American bashing. After all, Chaplin, Kazan, Wilder, Curtiz, Kurosawa, Bergman are all foreigners.
Great calls on Wyler, Kazan, Wilder, Curtiz, and Bergman. De Sica, Fellini, Truffaut, Goddard, Peckinpah, Leone also deserve mention — but it's your list. As for modern guys, Nolan, Mel Gibson and Michael Mann are the only guys whose work I run out to see.
Off the top of my Top 10 would be:
1. Stanley Kubrick
2. John Ford
3. Akira Kurosawa
4. Alfred Hitchcock
5. Billy WIlder
6. Elia Kazan
7. David Lean
8. Francis Ford Coppola
9. Howard Hawks
10. Sam Peckinpah
For posterity's sake, Demille and Griffith should be mentioned on any director list.
Hitchcock _may_ be overrated today, but only because of an overcorrection from his terribly underrated status through most of his career. If anyone is interested in learning about real cinema and actually understanding Hitchcock, I suggest reading Truffaut's enlightening and entertaining interview of the master of suspense.
(link)
Alien is not slow, it's one of the greatest monster movies of all time (if not the single greatest).
Yes, Chinatown is probably overrated. It's also really, really good.
Aronofsky is probably overrated, BUT it's difficult to overrate his influence on modern cinema. At this point I'm SICK of his steadicam-mounted-on-the-subject shot it's been used so often and so clumsily – it's worse than lens-flare in the 90s, but you can't deny his impact! It's like saying the Wachowski brothers had no effect on action sequences. Pi was a fantastic first film, especially since it was his NYU Masters Thesis. Requiem for a Dream was very well crafted and elicited some great performances. (Has Marlon Wayans EVER been nearly as good?) The Fountain is really his only failure – and that's because it was improperly budgeted. The film wasn't terrible, it was self-indulgent and a little sloppy, but it was also beautiful. The subject matter, synopsis and style couldn't bring in a large enough audience – but I wouldn't fault the director for that as much as the producer.
No, the LOTR trilogy is not the finest directorial effort of all time. Yes, it was big. Yes, they were good movies, for the most part. But Return of the King wouldn't friggin' end, and the adaptation from page to screen clumsily shattered one of the most complex and well-crafted works of storytelling and world-building ever created. Tolkien made LOTR great, not Jackson. Jackson simply didn't screw it up enough to make it bad until the end of the trilogy when all his hatchet work showed its effect in the last two barely-fit-on-the-platter-if-it-were-any-longer-we'd-NEED-an-intermission-to-rethread-the-projector reels.
How can you keep John Huston off your list for having "not enough versatility" yet include Chaplin?
Jack Lemmon was Billy Wilder's muse? Do you even know what a muse is?
Christopher Nolan is certainly a tremendous talent, he's one of my favorites, I love most of his work (and perhaps he will belong in a top ten one day) – but he is also currently overrated. Prestige was NOT that good (obvious twist, anyone?), and Insomnia is even worse if only for squandering a talent such as Pacino. And in this case even your writing is misleadingly poor. Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige and The Dark Knight are not only Nolan's “last five films,” THEY'RE ALL OF HIS FILMS excepting the previously mentioned Following. That's just sloppy.
Speaking of sloppy, the myriad of great talents you neglected to include, even if only to disparage their names, is indefensible. Others have mentioned Howard Hawks and Buster Keaton, who should have been included in even a cursory examination. There was also mention of Siegel, McLaglen, Hathaway, Thompson, McTiernan, Fuller and Wise all of whom deserved mention, especially since you seem to have such a liking for musicals. But there are even BIGGER and more important directors who you seem to have completely forgotten, if you've ever heard of them: EISENSTEIN, FELLINI, TRUFFAUT, GODARD, RIEFENSTAHL and let's not forget D.W. GRIFFITH who actually invented the feature film! You also neglect DePalma, Levinson, Kasdan, Altman, Hughes, Gilliam, Eastwood and, yes, Cameron; all of whom should have been included within the realm of your pathetic "entertain me" criteria if not in an actual “best ten directors” list.
Sigh.
He is a craftsman and he has designed some of the most exciting scenes in film history. But scenes, even great ones, are never an entire film. He has no idea to this day how to end a story (JAWS and Close Encounters are just two glaring examples).
To me, he is best summed up by Amazing Stories: "Gee, what would it be like to have a train come out of time and go through someone's house." Well, that one scene would look terrific, but the story behind it was painfully poorly executed. In fact, there was no there there.
Aldrich: Emperor of the North. WOW!
Spielberg. Chaplin and not Keaton. Sigh.
When I was very young I went to see a double feature once of the uncut "Hound of the Baskervilles" (what was uncut? "Watson, the needle!" And I thought, I'll stay and see this 45 minute movie that's on with it, something called "Sherlock Jr." The most amazing film I've ever seen.
Huton belongs where you put him, though I dearly love "The Man Who Would Be King." Huston was the master Chinese chef of movie directing; two hours of preparation, ten minutes of cooking. Choose the perfect cast and cinematographer then sit back and watch. Brad Douriff expressed horror that Huston sat in his director's chair and read a newspaper while he and the cast and crew were making the masterpiece "Wise Blood." Huston had already done his work, it's one of Huston's masterworks. But if he didn't get the right cast and crew, if he was stuck with Gregory Peck playing Ahab, he had a hard time making it work.
I would have added Don Siegel and Sam Peckinpah, who was, as Kael put it, the best director ever of individual scenes. There are great individual scenes in his worst movies; there is an astounding fight scene near the end of "The Osterman Weekend," and the death scene of Slim Pickins and L. Q. Jones in "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid" will tear your heart out.
Funny you say Wyler is your favorite and then linked the Ben-Hur chariot race, as he didn't even direct that scene.
Yes, I love Preston Sturges. He didn't make a lot of movies, but there were wonderful. Sullivan's Travels is one of my favorite movies of all time.
I don't know how you include Spielberg despite his misses, and leave out Kubrick. Kubrick was a revolutionary director. I would have included him in the top 10 before about 5 of the ones you included. 2001 an abomination? Lay off the booze when you write.
anybody want to bet whether Shapiro's even seen The Treasure of the Sierra Madre or Key Largo?
I can NOT put Spielberg as a 'top' director. To earn that, one has to transcend from entertainment to enlightenment – of human nature, of a truth, of history, of something, etc. But Spielberg doesn't. He merely entertains. It's damned good entertainment but the lack of awareness, lack of a moral imperative or spiritual need or an intellectual awareness is what dooms Spielberg. And that lack was painfully evident in 'Schindler's List'. In the hands of Wyler or Wilder or Ford, you would have seen the emotional and spiritual horror of the Holocaust. In Spielberg's hands, you saw only an ambitious director wanting to elevate himself with the cry, 'Look, I can be a great director too!'
Thanks for the dancing scene from Jezebel, always my pick for best movie. That the dress was so red in a black and white film, spoke volumns. Switch Spielberg (overrated) with Hitchcock and your lists won't be so shaky.
Also missing: Peckinpah , Lucas, Sturges, DeMille…
I doubt I'll ever look at anything you write again, Ben. Certainly nothing about film – what's the point? I might as well ask Ray Charles about colors.
There is some debate on whether the credit goes to Andrew Marton or Yakima Canutt. Most modern historians credit Canutt. I find BEN HUR a very moving and inspiring film, not hours of tedium.
You're referring to set-pieces. Of which there are countless great ones in Spielberg's work, like the train sequence in the "Ghost Train" episode of Amazing Stories.
But that's not what I'm referring to. Set pieces ALWAYS stand out to the casual observer. They're easy to pin-point because of their grandness.
I'm saying look deeper, past mere set-pieces and look at the rest of the film.
Lets take that same episode of Amazing Stories. Sure, the train sequence was spectacular, especially for TV and especially for 1987.
But what's impressive and inspiring is Spielberg's work when there isn't a train going through the house. For instance, watch how he stages the scene where the doctor gives Old Pa the sedative. The way he reveals that the shot has been administered or the shadows on the wall as Old Pa is subdued a beat later.
Or earlier, watch when Old Pa and the boy going looking for the tracks of the train. The way the camera moves and settles at the exact right moments. The foreground background compositions. The timing of the performances.
Watch the scene where the boy complains about living in that house, as Old Pa listens.
It's all exquisite and masterfully done.
THAT'S what's I'm talking about. Craftsmanship of the film entire (or in this case: episode) .
Nobody else does it as well as Spielberg… or again, IMNSHO: nobody ever has.
I'm with you on Kubrick, Scott although I would put Weir in at #10 instead of Spielberg who brought us Munich. I'm o.k. with Wyler at #1. Still, I think Ben should have name his list "the ten directors who gave me the most sustained viewing pleasure over the course of their career." Why confuse that with the concept of being "the greatest."
Well, not entirely. The characters aren't carbon copies of McBain's — they have the Kurosawa touch.
Okay, as one who reacted negatively to your original list I will grant that you are not as ignorant as you originally came off. You have seen some black and white movies. Framing your list as directors who have provided you with the most entertainment is a better way to put it, because there is a difference between determining a list of great directors based on what you like and a lists that cites great directors based on influence. This is why Orson always makes great directors lists of historians, they factor in more than what they like but technique and influence on other directors. I can't stand watching Bergman movies (do I really need to depress myself like that?) but there are good reasons to rank him as one the greatest directors of all time. As long as you make clear this is about what you like, leave the actual ranking to historians with more knowledge. And kudos to your appreciation of THE BAND WAGON, but to better understand Minnelli you need to see his non musical works: LUST FOR LIFE, THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL, THE CLOCK, THE COURTSHIP OF EDDIE'S FATHER, FATHER OF THE BRIDE (Spencer Tracy is brilliant). SOME CAME RUNNING, TEA AND SYMPATHY, TWO WEEKS IN ANOTHER TOWN.
Sigh, the "Perez Hilton" of movie commentary strikes again.
Enjoy your superficial clicks and hits–so much better than intelligence and integrity anyway.
Why do people get so butthurt over other people's opinions?
Unfortunately, I think he is correct and Wyler typically isn't rated very high. Most lists I see don't even mention him as a top director, let alone top 10.
"Alfred Hitchcock is nowhere near the worst director ever (I was probably too harsh to label him “slightly better than mediocre”), but it is a travesty to label him the greatest director of all time, as so many have. "
No, it's not a travesty, it's an opinion. A travesty is when a twit gets a column to express his twit opinions.
Charles Laughton directed one of the most unique, brilliant and beautiful flops of all time, "Night of the Hunter," his only effort.
*Note to self:
Never accept invitation to "movie night" at Ben Shapiro's house.
Akira Kurosawa definitely. RAN is a masterpiece.
Ugh, The Truman Show is crap. It's so utterly and completely stupid that it lowers the IQ to merely sit through the whole thing (really, the director tries to murder a guy on live TV and nobody cares?). It's faux drama on the level of a soap opera. The only difference is the acting isn't as bad.
Great list. I'm one of the few who sided with you on your previous one (although I agreed that putting Hitchcock #1 while leaving off Moore, Lee and and Polanski was a bad misstep). I don't know if I'd disagree with a single selection here. Nolan will have to be on the list with one or two more movies of the quality of Dark Knight. The same with Jackson (and I agree the trilogy is the finest film making achievement in history, even if the third one is a touch below the astronomical standards of the first two).
speaking of your name……it's a list of hollywood directors! not something, well, you know, important.
Yes, because so many of us watch 2001 on a weekly basis, right? You have to be kidding. That movie is so utterly bloated and stupid it makes Eyes Wide Shut seem like a masterpiece. Please….
Can anyone remember the last time anyone they knew actually watched that pile of crap? B-O-R-I-N-G
It's one of those movies people fondly remember while not ever being interested in sitting through again.
"Best ever" compilations like this require perspective and context. Need to be done by a person born before 1990 to have any merit. Sorry. Both of your lists have significant omissions. Naive. Try again in 20 years when you have some mileage under you and can see what stands the test of time.
Since your criteria for inclusion is your personal feelings there's no arguing with your list, nor any way to support it. It is, in a word, arbitrary.
2001: A Space Odyssey is an abomination? I saw it on the big screen (and I mean back when big screens were BIG) way back in 1968, and never looked back at Mary Poppins and Disney again. It was transformational, and even at eight years old I understood it from beginning to end.
That's as far as I had to read, Ben. Maybe you should have quit after you jumped the first shark.
I always find it odd that in discussions of film everybody seems to forget about MICHAEL POWELL AND EMERIC PRESSBURGER. The genius of that collaborative team is readily apparent in "The Red Shoes", "A Matter of Life and Death", "Black Narcissus", "The Tales of Hoffman", "49th Parallel", "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp" etc. etc.
I'd switch out Bergman for The Archers any day of the week.
And I'm not entirely sure how Cocteau was omitted but… Charlie Chaplin's there? And, not that Wyler doesn't deserve a spot but I'd still switch him out for Luis Bunuel.
I'd add John Frankenheimer to the list. It's a preference but the world would be a worse place without The Manchurian Candidate, Ronin, The Train, Seven Days in May and other gems like The Iceman Cometh.
I don't get why everyone hates 1941 so much. I love that flim. In fact it's one of my favorites. I challenge anyone who's never seen it before to watch it and judge for yourself if it deserves to be ranked as one of the worst movies ever made.
I loved Munchausen.
Burton is a bit of a Johnny-One-Note; all his films tend to look alike (watch the opening credits of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Sweeney Todd–they're the same!). That said, that one note is often the right one: Sleepy Hollow is a beautiful film and, in spite of what Shapiro says, I can't think of anyone living who could have done a better Sweeney Todd (Hitchcock might have done better, though I don't think he ever did a musical). When it's not, eh (Planet of the Apes, and I dread Alice in Wonderland–that's more of in Terry Gilliam's orbit, I think). If he'd been working 50 years ago, he'd probably have been the brightest director at Hammer Films.
Nolan? Jury's still out. Batman Begins good, and The Dark Knight was brilliant until the last 20 minutes or so, though that's probably the writing rather than the directing (the Two-Face subplot at the end was a distraction from the Joker plot, and should have been the basis of the third movie). And don't get me started on The Prestige; again, it's probably the writing not the directing that makes it so bad, but it's an awful movie where both protagonists are intensely unlikeable and the way the film is shaped we're supposed to be rooting for the bigger d-bag of the two (Bale's character).
As for who gets on the list and who doesn't, not a lot of complaints, but one observation: you kept some off the list because their work wasn't varied enough, but then you put Bergman on the list? Is his body of work really more varied than Huston?
Oh, and The Maltese Falcon isn't an adventure film, by the way.
Seriously.
Lighten up sport- It's just an opinion.
That's a great post.
I like your take on Aronofsky, but you hit the nail on the head regarding Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Jackson turned a contemplative journey into a escapist fare. I think he walked into Return of the King's ridiculous ending(s) because he and his screenwriters completely shifted the narrative away from the Hobbits. Consequently, they shed the story of some of its greatest moments.
I'm glad someone else mentioned Griffith — and the rest of those you listed. You simply can't speak of directors without even mentioning those people.
I don't get the hate for 1941, either. I wouldn't put it in the top whatever greatest comedies, and it's a bit dopey, but it's not as if I have the screaming urge to turn over the TV when it's on (and the parody of the Jaws opening is quite funny). And, while comparing movies to TV shows is a bit apples to oranges, as far as comedies set during a war go, it's got more laughs than any 10 episodes of the TV series MASH.
Patrick beat me to it. I have about 22 Wyler films in my collection, some of which I've watched repeatedly. I was glad to see him on Ben's list. But there's little doubt he's routinely (much like Cukor until recent years) ignored on 'best of' or 'most important' lists.
Citizen Kane
Ah… no. It was annoying, cloying and overacted.
"The Simpson's" take on it was far better.
It's tough to take the list or the author seriously (although I agree with 6-7 of the top ten list) when Mr. Shapiro indicates that Peter Jackson directed District 9, when he did no such thing. Neil Blomkamp did!. Jeez. That's the equivalent of doing a piece on Shakespeare and indicating that his best work was Pride & Prejudice.
You made John Ford number THREE?!!
On John Nolte's website?!!
I'll give you a few minutes to put Ford at number one, before Noble puts an axe in your head.
Schindler's List was awful, a sappy sentimental take on Oscar Schindler. OK, Spielberg did a great job with the ghetto massacres, and etc., much better than other attempts. However, Liam Neeson was GLUM. The real Oscar Schindler was a Salesman, a good time charlie par excellence, a natural born swindler and – combined with a kind of holy determination, saved those people from death: those specific people, the ones on the List, not any old thing the Auschwitz bureaucrats were ready to throw at him.
I asked a friend who is an excellent salesman about Schindler's List. He said, in the scene where Schindler/Neeson grabs a hose and pours cooling water on the victims in the death train, well, the REAL guy would have paid the train engineer to stop the train and do that job out of sight of the Nazi officers. Well, I re-read the book, and sure enough, that is EXACTLY what Schindler did!
Steven Spielberg has been involved in a many great fun tv shows and movies. He has produced a lot of fun. BTW I hated the fact that I paid to see Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. Next time it will be Pirate Bay for me on his next movie.
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000229/
I disagree about Casablanca as being the "greatest." The Greatest movie of that time is: THE THIRD MAN. It's beautiful, packed with unforgettable scenes, amazing faces. EXCELLENT.
Most of the directors in the fav – er, "best" list – are products of the studio system. Doesn't mean they weren't great (I like a lot of the work of most of the directors included, 'Best Years of Our Lives' is one of my favorite movies) but it does illustrate that the author has an AMC sense of what "great" is in terms of movies. There's nothing wrong with that except…
When one goes about trashing some of greatest directors in the history of film and then produces a list of "The 10 Greatest Directors" that, with few exceptions, is a list of directors from the studio system, well, let the digital lynch mob form. Big Hollywood, from what I remember, was supposed to be a place for people who love movies and television to enjoy well-though pieces about the respective areas while avoiding the liberal claptrap that infects most other places discussing the same things.
Shaprio's two pieces reinforce the false stereotype that Conservatives have vanilla taste in what's good and what's not while having zero respect or understanding for a film canon that didn't just happen by accident. Shapiro is only one voice at BH, but just because everyone is entitled to an opinion doesn't mean they don't come off like a twit when expressing it. BH has done better and can do better than this. Any critic who says that Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock are overrated doesn't deserve a spot making judgments about film at a heavily-trafficked site. This is the kind of thing that one would find at, I dunno, LiveJournal.
Finally, after looking at the overrated and great lists (and those omitted from the greats list), I see one thing that ties almost all of them together: Shapiro is not a fan of R-rated films, realistic violence, nudity, sex scenes and other things most of us don't want to watch with our parents sitting next to us. With the exception of a few of Spielberg's films, Shapiro's likes and dislikes are predictable based upon his aversion to the seedier sides of life being portrayed, which squares pretty well with his two books that I've read.
Nothing wrong with that, but not really a guy in a position to be declaring which artists are "great" and which ones aren't.
Someone once said that Ed Wood "would and could make a movie under any circumstances." So maybe Ed should be included as a Great Director. And where on the list is Clarence Brown, Garbo's Director.
well, I am going to watch "The Best years of our lives:" because of this list! and Ben Hur.
Ben, didn't you catch enough with your last trollumn? Thankfully you corrected yourself on some errors, but your claim that Hitchcock never made a good film is still there. But to completely exclude Howard Hawks from this list, after proclaiming your preference for the older films, is just, well, pathetic. I just deleted Big Hollywood from my browser toolbar. Nice work.
I"m not a movie nerd but what about DeMille?
War of the Worlds. Awful. I would have smacked that child sitting in the back seat, shrieking at every move. Terrible. Ethically terrible too. Awful. I HATED War of the Worlds!!!
Ugh – The Truman Show annoyed the crap outta me. How can you keep out Coppola for his turkeys, but still include Spielberg with his? I understand that it was tough to keep one out and the other on – and yes, it's purely subjective, but that seems like the toss of a coin decided that one.
Otherwise the list is pretty good, although I wouldn't put Chaplin on there. He's brilliant, and his movies are too, but I still feel there's not much range there…yes, he shows some (as far as humor and pathos but not style or genre), and with the exception of The Great Dictator, he basically played the same character over and over – additionally, he didn't really transition to talkies.
I was surprised there was no mention of Fellini anywhere on either posting. I wouldn't put him on the "greatest" list, but Terry Gilliam has at times directed with pure, inspired genius.
I don't think Shapiro's point was that Scorsese isn't good at doing the gritty, dirty underbelly thing. His point was that that is ALL Scorsese seems capable of doing. There's not a single one of his films I can think of that expresses anything like hope, love, kindness, charity, etc. This makes him an overrated director because doing essentially the same song and dance over and over and over does not constitute true greatness.
Apologies to Ben if I've misstated his position, but this is what I took him to mean.
His MacBeth! Wonderful.
The Third Man. Directed by Carol Reed. The very best movie. But I guess Reed didn't do much else.
Then
Anatomy of a Murder. Otto Preninger. Amazingly good movie.
My test of excellence is: can I watch the movie at home by myself all the way through without jumping ahead to see how the thing ends. Both those movies, along the the remastered Christmas Carol (Alistair Sims) meet that particular test.
The Third Man is great, but morally bleak and cold. Casablanca is the most quoted movie of all time. The Third Man makes most top 100 lists, but I've never seen it atop any critic's.
also, the Third Man is not "of that time." Casablanca was made during the war about the time after the war began and before America's entry. The Third Man is about POSTwar Vienna and the beginning of the Cold War. It's like saying Gone with the Wind and The Searchers are of a "time."
"Rebecca and Suspicion are the same film, not Notorious and Rebecca"
WTF??
Who hired this spoiled little twit? Must have a rich relative in the business. Get someone with experience, Big H -
Is it just me or does everyone picture Kanye West in their head when one reads the phrase "the greatest (blank) of all time"?
I thought Shapiro's previous list was sophomoric. I'm going to have to agree with QA it was likely a stunt to pull in hits.
However, saying 2001 was an abomination? Pure truth. The only good things in 2001 were the music and the little evil computer. Beyond that it's probably among the most boring and asinine plots in any film. (And what's with all the scenes without dialog? If you're going to make a scene with no dialog MAKE IT INTERESTING!) I can't even watch the whole thing in one sitting. Honestly, it's about as interesting as watching a snail slowly move across a sidewalk.
All that said, Shapiro could elaborate a bit more rather than just declaring "Film X == stupid".
Fondly? I like the Hal and the music. Most of the film is comprised of exciting scenes like…. an astronaut jogging.. with no dialog. Cascading panoramic shots of a space walk…. with no dialog. Seemingly drug induced dreams…. with no dialog…
In short, it's boring as hell and the plot is asinine.
Funny, I thought the ending to Jaws was pretty much perfect. Close Encounters was a little soft, but there really wasn't anywhere for it to go. It was about as good as it was going to be.
Ick….that's all I can think of to say. You might as well say Dane Cook is the father of modern comedy.
Double seriously. And that doesn't even include those who misunderstood the point of the first list. And I'd give anyone who has overcome the debilitations of a Harvard law degree at such a young age a break.
No Country couldn't have sucked more if they were given a bonus for making people walk out saying, "WTF was that mess?" Really? He's being hunted but decides to hang out with some strange woman at a motel, then the next scene is after everyone is dead? I've seen more believable plots in Halloween sequels.
Opinions are one thing, but I think perhaps I was setting up BigHollywood a bit too high. I can drop by anybody's blog and read what their personal favorite films are. I was expecting a bit more out of BigH. That was likely my fault however and one I won't be making again.
No, it really isn't. Name me another film of that scope that is as tightly directed (until the last half hour of the 3rd one). Everyone says they love Kane because that's what you're supposed to say to be accepted by film snobs, but acting back then was so pathetic we wouldn't even rate it as a Sci-Fi channel film of the week if it was made today. Great for it's time? Sure. Great for all time? Don't make me laugh.
I totally agree with the choice of Kurosawa. I've been covering the Kurosawa centennial retrospective at Film Forum lately and its been a pleasure revisiting his films. More than just ronin and samurai, he made some great film noirs, like STRAY DOG and HIGH AND LOW. Watching his films back-to-back, you also come to appreciate what a genuine movie star Toshiro Mifune was–talk about screen presence.
You deleted a political web site from your list because you disagreed with the film opinions of one of the writers? Wow, that could be the douchebaggiest thing I've ever seen said on a blog. Congrats.
These things are subjective, but I had the same thought when reading his list that I had when going through his most overrated directors. Who cares what a little boy thinks? Simply logging the time in front of a screen which would enable one to take a stab at a list like this is the product of a life's work while actually having a life – with all the ups and downs and experiences which accompany that. In Ben's case one gets the impression that this is a substitute for having a life, which is undoubtedly why in spite of having an "academic" grounding in film he comes across like a virgin talking about sex with the idiotic self-assurance of youth.
I believe you overlooked Ernst Lubitsch. At his funeral, two of your top ten… Billy Wilder noted: "No more Lubitsch." William Wyler answered: "Worse than that – no more Lubitsch films."
Heaven Can Wait (1943), To Be or Not to Be (1942), That Uncertain Feeling (1941), The Shop Around the Corner (1940), Ninotchka (1939), Bluebeard's Eighth Wife (1938), Angel (1937), Design for Living (1933)
# If I Had a Million (1932) (segment "The Clerk")
Right. Ben-Hur is absolutely brilliant. Christ is thoroughly woven into the story visually, musically and thematically when he is not personally present…only a genius could achieve that. Also, the scene in which he gives Heston water is a masterpiece. You see Christ in Heston's reaction. Unsurpassed.
It's freaking one man's opinion for crying out loud! Agree or not, but the level of vitriol and bile from you just might have a different opinion than you? You also make a lot of assumptions about what he has or hasn't experienced. Is there a particular timetable for when a person is supposed to check these things off their to-do lists? That's stereotyping to the extreme. The fact that he has been writing a syndicated column since the age of 17 ought to clue you in that he is an exceptional person. I would love to compare your resume with his.
Grow up, man!
Not just internet ones, top ten lists period. Actually, that applies to pretty much any type of "best of" list.
He was a train wreck, but Sam Peckinpah made incredibly moving and entertaining movies. His genius was obvious, even though the demons that drove him shortened a brilliant career.
He actually said that he was anti-auteur in the intro to the last list. Although he also said that writers are the true authors of motion pictures, which is just a different type of auerterism.
"He’s inconsistent, and that’s what knocks him off the list, as it should. " I think this sentence describes yourself Ben, it's just really hard to take you seriously, because you take yourself so seriously. There is so much hyperbole in your movie articles, and it really takes away from any valid point you might make. But I'm not knocking you for your opinion, however inconsistent it make be, you are entitled to one, I just don't like the way you give it.
You mean that it's a "top ten" list?
I don't really see how that could be read as implying that Peter Jackson directed District 9, since that movie is mentioned in relation to his skill as a producer.
I'm gonna have to agree with this statement… Just haven't experienced enough there Ben…
in short and to add to top 10: Andrei Tarkovsky, Jean Vigo and Josef von Sternberg…and I admit, I am biased on all three counts…
A gross oversight: Masaki Kobayashi. "The Human Condition" has been called by some the best film ever made. It grossly overshadows Akira Kurosawa and most others. It's 9 hours and 47 minutes broken into three parts: "No Greater Love," "The Road to Eternity" and "A Soldier's Prayer." There are no words to describe it in English (or most languages). The closest? A cinematic masterpiece. His movie, "Kwaidan" possesses an incredible blend of art-work and cinematic genius as well (so is worth a mention). The story, "Hoichi the Earless" is very solid concerning acting, cinematography, action and so forth.
I agree with your choice of Glen Ford, Billy Wilder and several others.
I don't remember Speilberg ever directing a great, hot love-making scene. Is it that his jejuneness showing or is he incapable in his films of seriously dramatic brutality or love?
What about the Coen brothers? No other contemporary film makers deliver up their breadth of work with such consistently good results (except for the misfires of The Ladykillers and Burn After Reading). O Brother, Fargo, The Man Who Wasn't There, Lebowski, The Hudsucker Proxy and No Country For Old Men will be watched and enjoyed far longer than any Bergman film. And shouldn't Shaprio's own criteria have eliminated the one note Bergman?
agree, I do not think anyone could take a long shot the way A. Tarkovsky was directing…just impeccable…I remember that I almost had a heat attack myself at the end of the incredible 9 minutes of the scene in the pool at the end of the 'Nostagia'…
John Huston –not enough versatility? I guess you haven't seen Fat City, Moulin Rouge , or The Dead? Oh whatever, it's absurd to argue with someone who thinks Lord of the Rings is the finest directorial effort of all time, that's pretty much a conversation ender.
It's end was fascinating, but the turgid crawl to it was mind freezing hard to sit thru.
Had you put Spielberg on your most overrated list, I would have agreed with you. Jaws, Raiders, and Schindler's List are superior, but how long has it been since he's made anything nearly as good as those movies?
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a better directorial effort than Citizen Kane? That's silly.
On my list, John Ford is number one. His legacy with John Wayne remains the holy grail of American film.
Like my response to 'High & Low'; both had a great story. But perhaps the wrong director to do them. The drag of '2001' where one too many from one plot point to the other and the drug frenzy ending nailed it into the ground.
Ingmar Bergman? I would rather stick hot, sharp needles in my eyes than even attempt to watch one of his movies all the way through to the end!
"not Notorious and Rebecca" – Thank you for the correction.
Attempted to read this article as much as the other one but as soon as I got to "Steven Spielberg as No. 10" I thought better of it. Apparently we have a very few commonalities in movies. Have a great week!
Kit, you have to see GF 2! (On the other hand, all existing copies of GF 3 should be destroyed.)
WTF? No love for Hawks??? Steven Spielberg is number 10 and Hawks is nowhere to be seen? If John Wayne was alive, he'd knock you off your block for that…..but….I like your moxie my friend –Comment baiting at its best! Awesome job.
William Wellman should be on the top-ten list. He directed "Battleground" — and invented the gangster film ("Public Enemy") and (for better or worse) the disaster movie ("The High and the Mighty").
My List (subject to change on whim or mood):
Ford
Scorsesee
Kubrick
Wellman
Curtiz
Hawks
The Coens
Wilder
Peckinpah
Huston
Sir, your top 10 list is full of win.
Citizen Kane was stylistically innovative. Subjective camera angles, close ups, flashback scenes, etc. etc. Basically things nobody had done in a film prior to that point. In that sense, Citizen Kane is an important film from a technical and style perspective. That aside, I thought the film was extremely depressing and certainly I didn't walk away feeling good.
If we look at LOTR, we have well…. a rather large story that was chopped up (for no real reason) to the point where in parts it didn't even make sense. There were plot holes all over the place. (Quick example: Aragorn suddenly shows up at Weathertop with hobbit sized weapons. Where did he get them?) Even if you don't know the real story these things are pretty glaring. The combat scenes weren't revolutionary, and in fact a few are downright terrible. (Aragorn at weathertop again! Bad!) They did do well on special effects generally in that they managed to get me to suspend disbelief. (Gollum for instance.) This is something Avatar failed to do for me for instance. The worst part of what he did was depriving me of seeing two more hot elf…. erm… I mean two important elven characters.
ANYWAY, the better film? I'd go with all 3 LOTR's of course rather than super depressing Kane. Better in terms of directing innovation and style? Definitely Citizen Kane.
I know it's fashionable to put "pioneers" like Charlie Chaplain in lists like this, but it's silly when Sergio Leone is nowhere to be found. And Spielberg? Groan!
Amen, brother! All hail The Archers and Buster Keaton!
Nobody directs action better than Spielberg?
I'm assuming you haven't seen any of John Woo's films.
The 10 best and 10 worst lists amount to nothing more than a pile of dog poop.
I really think that's what gets people up in arms over Shapiro's movie posts. It's not just that he's well…. pretty uninformed but that he's so … dogmatic. Rather than list reasons he makes general declarations. That makes him come across rather pompous. I have no trouble if someone hates X film or director that I love. I do expect (or did anyway) that any post on BigH would have an insightful reason WHY.
Anyway… I like Hitchcock but I don't think he was the greatest ever. (He had his share of duds.) I don't really think any director can be. They all have their niche usually.
McTiernan: "13th Warrior" "Rollerball" remake…….uh no!
If The King of Comedy (a Scorsece directed picture staring Robert De Niro and Jerry Lewis) doesn't define hope in some strange, twisted, demented way, I don't think I want to believe in the word "hope" let alone ever use it again.
"Nobody – nobody – directs action better."
I completely disagree with this. In terms of great action, Spielberg doesn't come close to Antoine Fuqua.
I love "You, sir….." posts!
Andrei Tarkovsky
Tarkovksy is listed among the 100 most critically acclaimed film directors; director Ingmar Bergman was quoted as saying "Tarkovsky for me is the greatest [director], the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream".
and "SECONDS". A nightmare come to life with Rock Hudson of all people giving a performance like no other he ever did. The ending – brutal. Not for the easily disturbed. I have never seen Hudson discuss the film. I would like to.
Uhm, Peter Jackson played no part whatsoever in District 9, it was one of those things where a movie coming out of his home town was very big, very good, and he slapped his name on it with producer credits to get it some exposure, much like Tarantino did for Eli Roth.
Jackson did "Dead Alive" , "Bad Taste" and "The Frighteners" which were all most likely box office poison, but to horror fans such as myself they remain as some of the most fun and fantastic movies ever made… and his latest is in theaters now called "The Lovely Bones" and personally I thought it was very well done.
FYI:
District 9 was made by a Canadian from South Africa.
Peter Jackson is from New Zealand.
Not exactly neighbors.
A gdzie Pasikowski,gdzie Piestrak???
"That said, Jackson hasn’t done anything else. "
Stop writing about movies, Shapiro. Now.
You have Akira Kurosawa, but I feel that Kaneto Shindo should also have been on that list. Onibaba is the best film from the B&W era of Japanese film making that I have ever seen. His other works are as equally as engaging and well done as Kurosawa's films, he just does not have the name recognition in the states.
Guillermo Del Toro is another that I would place on the list. Never have I had a director that I have enjoyed everything of his as much as I have of Guillermo. He brings a gritty realism to his movies that few can match and he brings it into everything that he touches. From Cronos to Hellboy, I have enjoyed both his directorial efforts and his producing. He also is a mean screenwriter.
I also would have left William Wyler, I feel just the opposite of you, he was vastly overrated. I enjoyed just one of his films, Ben Hur. The rest left me wanting him to refund the two hours I had spent watching his movies.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Goonies is awesome. Lol. No I really do like it, it is what I would term cult classic but not my favorite. I don't think I have watched any movies Spielberg directed in the last 5 years so my opinion of his films hasn't been tainted too much yet.
My dad will still watch it. He has watched it twice within the last 5 years. He loves it. I have never sat through the whole thing, but I do have kids to chase around. I intend to eventually so I can have a more informed opinion of the movie.
While I was watching The Aviator, I never felt like I was going over material that I'd seen in Gangs of New York, Casino, Cape Fear, Goodfellas, The Last Temptatiion of Christ, Raging Bull or Taxi Driver.
I'm pointing out that Shapiro doesn't have enough experience in life to rate Coppola over Scorsese. He doesn't understand the damage Coppola did to our civilization by legitimizing the Italian Mafia. I appreciate Scorsese much more (at least in gangster movies) because he grabs the audience by throat and refuses to let us deny the truth.
Filmically, I always admire Coppola's carefully crafted mise-en-scene, but Scorsese seems to have a better memory for all the films he has ever analyzed and can apply those techniques in ways that interestingly make his points.
I really like Gilliam, too. Time Bandits, Brazil, Munchausen, Fisher King, and 12 Monkeys are great. The one problem I have with him is he sometimes neglects a coherent story in favor of interesting visuals.
I just saw The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. The story is a bit convulted, but I really enjoyed it. It's definately a step up from his last few. (I really don't understand the cult following for Fear and Loathing).
Billy Wilder & Elia Kazan definitely make my list too.
How about Raoul Walsh?
Oh dear, you young people and your funny ideas…
No King Vidor? No Murnau (obviously the author hasn't seen Sunrise)? Chaplin makes the list, but Keaton doesn't? Tod Browning doesn't make the top ten? von Stroheim doesn't make the top ten? Carol Reed? George Stevens doesn't make the list? Vincent Minelli, Robert Wise, Busby Berkley, Preston Sturges, Federick Fellini, Michangelo Antonio, Roberto Rossellini, Jean Renoir, Claude Berri, Lina Wertmüller — what a bunch of losers, eh? Somehow Victor Fleming and Michael Curtiz beat them out because they made (oh my god!) Gone With The Wind and Casablanca, two of the most overrated, awful movies ever made.
Everyone is impressed with Kurosawa, at least at first. John Ford was better, and his silent movies are at least as good (if not better) than his talkies. Frank Capra? He was no one without his writers. John Huston made at least as many bad movies as good ones, to be fair.
Wyler makes the list, but Raoul Walsh doesn't? Michael Curtiz??!! VICTOR FLEMING??!!!??!! STEVEN SPIELBERG??!!!??**@(!! Jeeze Louise. I suppose there's no accounting for taste, obviously.
These kinds of articles take a lot of courage to write — you're bound to disappoint some people. In your case, though, I think you've managed to disappoint and/or offend nearly everybody. I've seen blogs everywhere about your ten most overrated (and now) ten greatest directors list. Congratulations!
Youth, wasted on the young, on display here. Apparently, you wouldn't know a good director from a best boy.
Sam Peckinpah was a great director, but he only made one, maybe two good films (The Wild Bunch, Ride the High Country) before the drugs destroyed him.
I hold with this guy. I saw 2001 when it was first released at the CINERAMA theater in Syosset, LI, NY. It was an unforgettable experience and film. I have watched it several times over the years and I am still taken in by its majesty and deliberate pace and epic story. I have never fully understood the film, but that does not bother me too much. It's a film like no other.
As both a John Ford and Kurosawa fan, I would've liked to have seen Sergio Leone on the list.
And as much as people deride Speilberg, his movies (at least his earlier ones) are some of the most entertaining and unforgettable films ever made. E.T. Close Encounters. Raiders. I could watch Jaws a hundred times and never get tired of it.
I read both Top 10 lists and I have a few comments:
- I agree with an above commenter about Peter Jackson. "Heavenly Creatures" is far better than it seems to have been given credit for. For my money, "Dead Alive" is about as unique and fun a zombie film as George Romero's Dead trilogy. And while maybe not for everyone, I can't remember anything else out there being quite as bizarre and twisted as "Meet The Feebles".
- Scorsese was mentioned in this article and the last for creating unlikeable characters or characters that exude no emotional response from the viewer. What about Sam Rothstein in "Casino"? Here was a man that was trying to maintain an above-board empire while his past continued following him around to drag him him down. Meanwhile, the woman that he wanted to love more than anything betrayed his trust at every turn. How can anyone not AT LEAST sympathize with that situation? Or Karen Hill in "Goodfellas"? The woman who tried to do the right thing, even while she was doing it all wrong. Or William Costigan in "The Departed"? Or Sgt. Dignum?
- How does Sergio Leone fail to even get an honorable mention? I maintain that "The Good The Bad And The Ugly" has to be in the Top 5 films of all time in the category of pure cinematography.
The cut scene shows that the sub stayed at periscope depth the whole journey. That´s hardly a credible explanation. In reality the sub would have traveled on the surface most of the time, but with lookouts on the turret. But it doesn´t really matter. I love the movie anyway.
The Getaway is excellent, too. Bring me the Head of Alfredo Garcia and The Ballad of Cable Hogue are pretty good. That is a rate of excellent to bad that most directors – expecially the ones who risk anything – can only dream of.
you mean like this?
Film X == very stupid
i have to agree about 2001. i've seen it EXACTLY once. what people remember about 2001 isn't so much the movie, it's the story (from Arthur C. Clarke). that's what keeps you thinking afterward… what if there is a sentinel out there that we'll someday find?
I'm going to have to agree with this list. I may argue the placing (I'm a John Ford kinda guy) but I can't argue any pick.
I'd also like to add that it takes a lot of guts to come out with a list like this on a public board and sign your name to it; a whole lot more than it takes to come up with a lot of anonymous sniping, bitching, and whining.
You forgot Kubrick's 'Full Metal Jacket'; often slated to be one of the top – if not the very top – war movies ever made.
Peter Jackson – Meet the Feebles, The Frighteners, Brain Dead. And of course Lord of the Rings.
Edgar Wright – Hot Fuzz, Sean of the Dead and Scott Pilgrim,
Tarantino – even if he does do 'Ooh, slick, blood, slick, ooh' a lot [GGG]
Cronenberg – again, even if he does 'let me gross out as many of the viewers as possible'
Kubrick – mad as a bucket of frogs, but to cope with 2001, Clockwork Orange AND Full Metal Jacket takes genius
Sam Raimi – Evil Dead movies plus Spiderman. Watch him in the future!
Joss Whedon – Serenity alone qualifies him. Best space movie EVER.
John Ford
Mai Zetterling
Terry Gilliam – amazing vision and genius
He's not anti-auteur. He's ignorant. He doesn't know enough to have an opinion on auteur theory.
Controversy and disagreement are one thing.
Claiming the sky is made of oatmeal is entirely another.
Yes, but you're making the assumption that either list was incompetent. I'd make the opposite argument (other than the aforementioned Hitchcock misstep). Then you're taking stupid up a level by saying that one blogger you disagree with invalidates an entire site. Not to be mean, but that's just moronic. You're telling me you'd consider not reading Charles Winecoff or Michael Yon because you don't like the film opinions of a different blogger? Seriously?
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Ben Hur is a pedestrian movie without the chariot race. And it's common knowledge that the second unit director, Yakima Canutt, directed the chariot race. Sam Zimbalist told Wyler from the beginning that the race would be second-unit action. Wyler was hired to do the intimate scenes — dull stuff minus the chariot race.
Absolutely! But more importantly, Casablanca is the highest achievement of the classic studio system, the Perfect Storm of film, if you will. He gives far too much credit to Curtiz for the film, which wouldn't be so bad if that were one of the greater mistakes he made, but really it's one of the least important of his analytical sins.
Because he's posting on a Hollywood oriented list and assuming the mantle of authority in delineating a list of the "greatest directors". If nobody should care about this guy's opinion, he has no business being a contributor to this website.
It's as if one went to the Sports Illustrated website and wrote an article about the top football players of all time, but evaluated everyone based on the color of their shoes. His analysis and critique has as much validity as your quote of Peter Griffin, and imbecilic cartoon character. It's asinine and insulting to the readership to publish articles like this.
"I'm not qualified enough to comment on the list. "
Unfortunately, neither is the author.
You are completely and totally wrong.
Kubrick EASILY had stronger mastery of the craft of filmmaking. Spielberg can walk the walk, but Kubrick paved the damn road. Kubrick created specialty equipment in order to achieve the shots he wanted in most of his films, dictating technical specifications to machinists modifying specialty lenses. Spielberg couldn't do that in his wildest dreams. To even hint that Spielberg is a stronger craftsman is asinine.
That's just one glaring example.
DITTO!
Not really, it's an opinion piece on a film-oriented website that purports to have authority on the subject.
People who don't know about film may come to this site and "learn" what Shapiro has written, and be completely misled. His knowledge of film is so weak, it's not even comparable to publishing a math text that insists 2 + 2 = 5, he's saying 2 + 2 = green.
Anybody want to bet if he's even heard of them?
Thanks for the efficient reply to Des, Mago.
People that don't appreciate Citizen Kane have no perspective on where it comes in film. Low-angled shots, showing the ceiling – never done before. Passing through the window pain during the opening of the film – audiences were amazed! Looking back, without context, it's easy to dismiss these tremendous innovations.
It's not film snobbery, it's knowing what you're talking about.
And that's exactly why these articles should never have been published, and I believe BigHollywood and Ben Shapiro owe the readers an apology and retraction. These articles give credence to ignorant statements like those made by Des (nothing personal, btw – you just don't have the info), by publishing this crap BigHollywood and Ben Shapiro have done a disservice to the entire film community. It's a shameful embarrassment.
p.s. – sorry for the typos (pain = pane)
Spielberg deserves a lot of credit for his use of camera movement, he's done a lot to expand the language of cinema. Because of that kind of innovation in film technique, he's more than just an entertainer. I don't know that he'd be in the top ten of all time, but he warrants serious consideration.
Spielberg was a student of Kubrick's. No doubt. Spielberg himself has admitted how strongly he was influenced not only by Kubrick's work, but by his friendship. Kubrick was a genius. Like Spielberg.
But here's where YOU'RE completely and totally wrong.
Spielberg SURPASSED Kubrick.
Like a student bettering his teacher. Happens all the time. Happened here too.
Kubrick in a weird way admitted it when he gave Spielberg "A.I." Kubrick knew he didn't have what it took to make that movie. Kubrick has even been on the record saying how much he admired (and perhaps envied) Spielberg's work. His own widow has practically admitted this.
And it terms of creating "equipment" to better his movie-making, few have done this more than Spielberg (Lucas, Cameron and Zemeckis are the others). I mean, hello, Spielberg pushed for the digital dinos in "Jurassic Park", rather than stick to stop motion puppets (or GO motion as it was called then). Had he not pushed CGI technology "Jurassic Park" would not have been the classic it is.
Shall we even discuss the technology that he "pushed" for Close Encounters?!
How about the lens innovations he pushed for in "Saving Private Ryan" ?
I can go on.
And on.
And on.
Defy me to and I will.
Nothing asinine about my argument as you can see.
Because he's published on a Hollywood and film-focused website that is attempting to establish itself as an authority. Articles of this nature completely undermine that effort. It's not just his opinion, everyone's entitled to one, it's his explanation of that opinion. If a sports caster goes on ESPN and says "now that guy in the hat thingy is running past the other guys in the blue shirts and now he's throwing the ball thing down" people change the channel and call ESPN's authority into question with good reason. They demand that sportscaster be taken off the air or they stop watching. That sportscaster has the right to an opinion, but not the right to be on the air.
BigHollywood – please stop publishing Shapiro's work, he has demonstrated himself to be a complete hack with no understanding of film!
Shapiro's Harvard law degree gives him the authority to write about law, not film. I'm not going to "give him a break" when he's publishing such poorly reasoned pieces on a film-oriented website.
It also demonstrates his inability to separate between personal taste and qualitative assessment.
As I said in another post, there's a world of difference between a food critic saying "This is bad alfredo sauce" and saying "I don't like alfredo sauce". Ben Shapiro doesn't understand that difference.
Des_, you're actually Ben Shapiro attempting to salvage yourself, aren't you? Maybe you should change your handle to "Ellie Light"
One name is noticeably absent, George Cukor, as a director and contributor to many great movies including GWTW and The Wizard of Oz. One of the most witty and intricate to direct was The Women.
Just one example of Shapiro's complete ignorance of the subject matter. The filmmaking technology and techniques developed by Kubrick to achieve the specific imagery he wanted was truly a remarkable achievement. The front projection used to provide the endless vistas of prehistoric man – breathtaking.
Shapiro doesn't even know what I'm referring to.
The intricately pre-visualized and designed effects shots, multiple layers and exacting creation of mattes by hand – frame by frame – all to ensure that each section of each frame is only exposed once so space can be black! The giant gyroscopic sets built to achieve zero-gravity on earth! All done by hand, mechanically, in camera, before computers! Amazing!
Shapiro calls it an "abomination."
He's a five year old in a strip club talking about shiny poles.
He's an illiterate peeing on the constitution because it's "boring".
And BigHollywood publishes the work! Telling the world "Hey, this guy knows what he's talking about, read this!"
Shameful.
I am also a fan of Tim Burton because he knows how to take a story and twist it. That, and I know it's weird, I liked his version of Willy Wonka. Me and my son still watch it, and we have seen it at least a dozen times. Kubrick is out BECAUSE of Eyes Wide Shut. I liked A Clockwork Orange, though. Coppola made Godfather 3 and that is unforgivable. Chris Columbus should have at least made the metionable category for his adaptation of the first 2 Potter films.
McTiernan dropped off the map something fierce. Some of his early films are near perfect and some of his later films (Last Action Hero, 13th Warrior) are near unwatchable. Amazing flame out.
He only produced 'Goonies'. It was directed by Richard Donner of 'Superman' and 'Lethal Weapon' fame.
I've willingly sat through it multiple times and I imagine I'll do it many more before I die.
Try not to project your own tastes onto others.
The Lord of the Rings…the greatest directing effort of all time. Um…..ahhh…..Not sure what to say. I'm a huge Tolkien fan and was predisposed to like these movies. The first one was best (although do we need the freakin' wisecracks all the time–the film has no verisimilitude. Does a huge column of stone wobble all around before falling? No, it's weight is going to carry in whatever direction it starts falling), The Two Towers was an insult, and Return of the King had great visuals, but a dumb script, like all of the films.
Who is this idiot and WHY is he spouting these inane opinions? Is it a joke?
Blah, blah, blah. You've already exposed yourself for the hack movie critic you are. This list means nothing. I am not attacking your taste, but rather your lack of a good argument. Big Hollywood needs to really reconsider this guy writing anything for them.
Controversial? If that is the only reason to keep him, then hire me! I can be controversial, too. And use the same "sound" arguments Mr. Shapiro uses.
Top 10 Greatest Actors of All Time:
1. Fozzie Bear: His work in "Muppets Take Manhattan" was neato.
2. Gopher from "Caddyshack": Great film debut. His squeeky voice and hip gyrations showed that he was further ahead of his time than Chevy Chase, Rodney Dangerfield and Bill…what's his name?
3. Jake Lloyd: His low-key approach to the young Anakin Skywalker carried that brilliant work of art known as "The Phantom Menace".
4. Brett Favre: Practically stole "There's Something About Mary" away from Cameron Diaz (or is it Diaz Cameron?) and Ben Stiller.
5. Pinball Machine: Remember? The one from, "Tommy"? Reminded me of a better HAL 9000 from that crapfest known as "2001: A Space Odyssey".
6. Howard Stern: His role as "Howard Stern" in "Private Parts" was dead on! Imagine the depth he had to go through to get that part right. Unlike Heath Ledger who obviously phoned it in for "The Dark Knight"
7. Chris Barnes: "Tanner" from "The Bad News Bears". His subtle rages keeps the audience captivated throughout.
8. The Rock: Two words, "Tooth Fairy".
9. Michael Fishman: "D.J." from "Roseanne". I'm sure he taught John Goodman a thing or two about the craft we know as "ACTING"!
10. Sophia Coppola: Her directing and writing is only surpassed by her acting in "Godfather III". Which is by far the best of the all the "Godfather" films.
See, I can be dumb, too!
Try reading the whole thread (or asking a handful of people around you). It's not my taste, it's most people's. Someone claiming that 2001 is some kind of Nirvana of film achievement is going far further out on that limb than I am in saying what most people show every day. How often is 2001 shown on TV? Is that because they various outlets don't want to make money, or because they know nobody will watch it? I work a PT job handling DVDs for a mail order company and can promise you that I haven't seen it a single time in the months I've worked there.
If you love it, you're in the vast minority. Most people would rather be waterboarded.
You redeemed your "worst directors" list by putting William Wyler fittingly at #1. Anyone who lists him as otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. Ben-Hur is potentially the greatest film of all time.
I loved Spielberg's earlier movies (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Close Encounters) but he's extremely self-indulgent.
The publication of this article does call all of BigHollywood into question. BigHollywood isnt' just a political site, it's specifically about politics within Hollywood, and film is a big part of Hollywood. To have people posting "Best Director" lists of such incredible incompetence calls not only Ben Shapiro into question, but the editorial staff who signed off on this tripe.
I don't know that age is the defacto problem. There are younger people with wider knowledge of film, and there are older people with an equally narrow knowledge of film (it'd be really hard to have a more narrow understanding than Shapiro's demonstrated – "naive" truly is a good description). His work is cursory and amateur at best, and has no business being included in a professional publication.
I'm waiting for you to point out anything I said that is "ignorant." No offense, but you're the one whining that it harms the site to have someone give an opinion you don't agree with. What's next? Are you going to threaten to take your ball and go home?
I'm pretty sure Terrence Mallick deserves a spot somewhere in this discussion, if for nothing else than the mesmerizing Days of Heaven.
You said what I meant better than I did. Sadly, I couldn't agree with you more.
J.I.M. – I completely and totally apologize for referring to your post as "asinine," it was uncalled for. In my defense, I was fairly worked up over Shapiro's post, which is completely asinine.
However, you are still wrong about Spielberg. I'm not trying to take anything away from Spielberg – he's a wonderful talent and strong director, and he's certainly good at utilizing new technologies to their fullest. He just doesn't invent them. You could make an argument that he "pushed" for better puppetry with E.T. because he insisted it not look like "a guy in a suit" – but it's really not the same as Kubrick.
Spielberg didn't push for digital dinos in Jurassic Park. He was going to use more conventional methods until the guys who DID invent the technology proved to him that it could work. But the onus was on them to convince him, not the other way around.
Close Encounters was using ILM technology developed for Star Wars, again, not inspired by Spielberg.
The lens "innovations" used in Saving Private Ryan were pushed by Janusz Kaminski, the cinematographer. And most of the innovations were actually reversions to older technologies to better replicate the look of WWII period lenses (remove anti-reflection coating, etc.)
Nothing that Spielberg has done comes close to Kubrick's push for innovation and development. If you want to talk about emotional camera movement, Spielberg's the man! Technological innovation and invention, not so much.
Cameron and Lucas – yes!
Spielberg – no.
Zemeckis, eh, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. The work in Forrest Gump perhaps? The use of 3D in Polar Express and Beowulf, ~maybe~ (but really, that innovation was pushed more by WETA and Jackson). Zemeckis can apply existing technology (much like Spielberg), but he's not designing and finding technicians to craft the technology to produce his visions. I could be overlooking something – but still, he doesn't approach Kubrick. Nor Cameron and Lucas.
I'll back you on the ending to Jaws – pretty darn good.
Best monster movie… until Alien.
I'm not assuming either list was incompetent, they are demonstrably incompetent.
I'll quote a response I made to a similar comment on this page:
"Because he's published on a Hollywood and film-focused website that is attempting to establish itself as an authority. Articles of this nature completely undermine that effort. It's not just his opinion, everyone's entitled to one, it's his explanation of that opinion. If a sports caster goes on ESPN and says "now that guy in the hat thingy is running past the other guys in the blue shirts and now he's throwing the ball thing down" people change the channel and call ESPN's authority into question with good reason. They demand that sportscaster be taken off the air or they stop watching. That sportscaster has the right to an opinion, but not the right to be on the air."
By publishing these articles, the editorial staff is endorsing his authority. That either means their standards are too low, or they themselves haven't the knowledge to effectively run this site.
I know about film, I don't know about the law. I wouldn't assume to publish an article in the Harvard Law Review and would fully expect any article I submit to be denied based on my lack of knowledge. Ben Shapiro may know the law, but he doesn't know film. BigHollywood should never have posted his pieces because he doesn't have the knowledge to write competently on the subject. And if BigHollywood doesn't have the ability to effectively control the quality of their content, it's not worth my time to separate the wheat from the chaffe.
If I opened a copy of National Geographic and found an article explaining that Greenland had sunk into the sea in 1998, I would stop reading National Geographic unless they corrected their obvious, gross error.
Thank you for the complement!
It's actually the second half of my original post, but the first half is still waiting for approval from the site moderators… if it ever comes.
As to Jackson's problems in Return of the King – yes they entirely came about because of his butchery of a meticulously balanced narrative. As William Goldman said, "A problem in your third act is a problem in your first act." I left Fellowship of the Ring quite saddened because it was easy to see how his changes would snowball throughout the rest of the narrative. Quite unfortunate.
Des_, you are certainly entitled to dislike 2001, but to say it's an abomination or deny that it is a significant achievement in film is to demonstrate ignorance of how and why the film was made. Popularity and ticket sales do not equate to quality or achievement in cinema (ie, Michael Bay).
Audiences of the period LOVED the film and were amazed by the visuals.
Watching 2001 on TV is like listening to Mozart with a can and string – it just doesn't do it justice. Even Blu-Ray doesn't compare to the majesty of the 70mm print projection. I only wish I'd been born early enough to see it in a theater.
You don't have to like it. But you should respect the craft.
But don't forget that Kubrick and Clarke worked on the story in tandem. You can't separate one from the other.
District 9 started as a South African short film.
Peter Jackson's role in the production of the feature was to actually give it breath. The movie would never have been made had Peter Jackson not met the director.
DITTO!!!!
You've obviously not read or you haven't understood the content of my posts.
I have no problem with people expressing opinions I disagree with, I invite the discussion. What I do object to is the reasoning behind his opinion being published on a site like BigHollywood. This is supposed to be discussion with professionals, not amateurs.
Since you asked, here's an example of one of your statements that is completely based in ignorance:
"Everyone says they love Kane because that's what you're supposed to say to be accepted by film snobs"
This isn't just ignorant, it's stereotypically ignorant. You discount Citizen Kane specifically because you are ignorant of its innovation and achievement.
As to taking my ball and going home…
If I were a professional baseball player, and received an invitation to play with other professionals, then when I arrive I find an eight year-old with a wiffle bat complaining that Babe Ruth was the worst player in history because he "hit the balls too far" then YES, I take my ball and go where the real professionals are playing.
The kid is certainly entitled to his opinion, but he's demonstrably wrong, obviously doesn't understand the game and has no business being published in Sports Illustrated!
Prior to Citizen Kane nobody had shown a ceiling in a film. For that innovation ALONE Citizen Kane deserves high praise, but it's only one of many cinematic developments that defined the role of the director and expanded the entire language of cinema.
Nobody thinks of a close up as innovative today, but prior to Citizen Kane it didn't exist! It's easy to dismiss the achievements that seem obvious now, but they were truly revolutionary a hundred years ago.
Similarly, nobody cares if you have lights on at night today, but when Edison gave us the light bulb the entire world changed.
I'm not saying that Spielberg needs to physically create the technology himself, Kubrick didn't either in many cases (although I believe he actually did in some), but there is a fundamental difference between the two. Kubrick was actively and intimately involved in the development and testing of the technology to his specifications and at his impetus. Spielberg effectively applies the inventions of others.
In the case of Spielberg: A bunch of technicians and engineers invent a piece of technology, they take it to Spielberg, and say "Hey, look what we can do!" Spielberg looks at their new toys and applies them with true mastery. He's definitely cutting edge. But others gave him the goods.
Kubrick did the opposite. He devised a shot or sequence or entire film in his head. Then HE WENT TO THE TECHNICIANS and said "here's a shop, and here's some equipment, and here's some materials. I need you to make this thing and it has to work like this and be able to accomplish this. Use these parts and put it together this way. Okay? Now go make it." I don't know that Kubrick actually took part in the physical manufacture, but he very well may have, and he certainly did everything but. Spielberg isn't sending technical specs to optical engineers. Kubrick was.
A fundamentally different approach, and why Kubrick gets the craft award over Spielberg.
(capitalization for emphasis, not to imply yelling etc.)
You said it yourself with Panavision and Spielberg. He used the tech they gave him and told them what he thought. Nothing to complain about and much to admire, but it's different from Kubrick. If Spielberg had gone to Panavision BEFORE shooting and said "Hey guys, I need you to make some smaller, lightweight cameras I can use for this movie" and they said "Hey, that's a good idea!" THAT would put him closer to Kubrick. If he then worked in partnership with Panavision, testing the lenses and offering technical specifications and engineering fixes, he's even closer.
There was a GREAT article in AC with one of the guys who built Kubrick's lenses for Barry Lyndon. A demonstrative quote from the article:
"Kubrick insisted that I build him a 20-to-1 zoom lens for "BARRY LYNDON". What followed was a series of phone calls, telexes, and letters between Kubrick and myself and between me and the Angenieux Corporation, who were, in fact, the suppliers of the basic zoom components for all of these 20-to-1 zoom lenses. Through it all, Kubrick displayed the kind of technical knowledge and skill, rare in modern filmmakers, that enabled him to define the problem precisely and specify what had to be done to achieve the lens he wanted."
Blessedly, a Kubrick oriented website keeps these articles publicly available and I urge anyone interested to read them. They are FASCINATING:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.ht...
There's also detailed descriptions of the technology used to create 2001, and explanation of Kubrick's intense, personal involvement in the development of those technologies.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/2001a/page1.htm...
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/2001a/page2.htm...
Or if you prefer to find printed back-issues:
DiGiulio, Ed. "Two Special Lenses for Barry Lyndon" – American Cinematographer, 1976 March, p.268
Lightman, Herb. "Filming 2001: A Space Odyssey" – American Cinematographer, vol 49, no 6
Additionally, the site includes scans of the original program issued to theater-goers during the initial release of 2001. The film was truly a cinematic event and the website is a treasure:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/
Again, Shapiro calls this acheivement "an abomination". Completely indefensible.
Shapiro may have gotten us talking, which deserves some credit I guess, but I would expect analysis of this depth to be available from the actual columnists on a "professional" site, not merely the reader's comments.
I strongly urge BigHollywood to publish a retraction and apology, and never publish Shapiro's work. Leave him to discuss law, something he's actually qualified to do.
Grrr! I just wrote a long post in response, and it "has to be approved by site administrators." And I didn't save the text to notepad before posting. Hopefully not lost to the ether!
Regardless, I think we're mostly having a semantic argument here. By clarifying that Spielberg has a better grasp of film grammar, I think I can agree with you on that. His innovation in and application of camera movement for emotional emphasis and even his static frames are absolutely tops. But I define that as cinema, visual language, not the craft. When I think "craft" I include the technical aspects of the film as well as the artistic, and Kubrick easily surpasses Spielberg in that respect.
Just in case my original post is never approved, I also want to include the links I had within it, sorry if it's a duplication at this point:
These articles are written by technicians that worked with Kubrick to develop equipment at his impetus and to his specifications to achieve the results he intended. As you said, Spielberg used the equipment provided by Panavision, and that's the fundamental difference.
The articles are fascinating and their publication is a treasure. I strongly urge anyone interested to read these pieces, they are simply wonderful.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/
Specifically about two lenses Kubrick had made for Barry Lyndon:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.ht...
And a quote showing his personal involvement in the technical development of the equipment:
"Kubrick insisted that I build him a 20-to-1 zoom lens for "BARRY LYNDON". What followed was a series of phone calls, telexes, and letters between Kubrick and myself and between me and the Angenieux Corporation, who were, in fact, the suppliers of the basic zoom components for all of these 20-to-1 zoom lenses. Through it all, Kubrick displayed the kind of technical knowledge and skill, rare in modern filmmakers, that enabled him to define the problem precisely and specify what had to be done to achieve the lens he wanted."
Of course, Kubrick is "overrated."
All of this is really compelling and I see your point about Kubrick in terms of technology. And perhaps this is all about semantics.
I look at directorial craftsmanship not as a physical in-the-shop trade, where a director sets up in a mill somewhere and tinkers with hardware no more than a master chef is out in the field under the hot sun, picking tomatoes for his dishes.
Somebody else picks the tomatoes.
Somebody else figures out how to best grow them. Etc.
But the master chef knows how to take that tomato and make a fantastic meal from it.
Could the master chef influence how tomatoes are grown and harvested, etc. Absolutely.
But that's not what I'm talking about in terms of craft.
I'm talking about the moment the chef has the tomato in hand.
What's he do with it? How's he do it? Why does he do it?
And why does his dish taste BETTER than anyone else's?
It's a dopey analogy I realize, but that's what I'm referring to with Spielberg.
Look, even though they were both well versed in all things technology, perhaps Kubrick had a bit more of a hands-on approach. I'll cede that to you.
And maybe that's why Spielberg's work resonates with wide audiences more than Kubrick's.
While Kubrick was busy calling the lens company perfecting the lens, (something a DP should be worrying about, not a director really), Spielberg was busy perfecting how to move an audience with the lens.
I suppose that may be the big difference between the two.
Again, there is no doubt Spielberg was heavily influenced by Kubrick (ironically, they share the same taste in lenses). But the student soon became the master because one knew how to get "heart" on film. The other one didn't.
that's a fine analysis. but i beg to differ on certain rankings. for one thing, coppola might have done some trash movies in the later parts of his life, but the 5 or 6 movies he had done are enough to see him into the top 5. bergman is unparalled, he deserves the number one spot, not the 8th spot. plus any list of 10 greatest directors without truffaut and federico felini and vittorio de sica is kind of absurd. they are two good. they could have replaced john ford, billy wilder and elia kazan. i mean, of course, they are great directors, and personally i am a great fan of elia kazan's films, but still the others are better. and i also reckon the list is incomplete without satyajit ray.
Don't forget "Straw Dogs" and "Cross of Iron."
I tend to agree about Tim Burton…it's not that I dislike his style. I really like it. However, the fact that he uses that style in the exact same way in every friggin' movie has just made me bored with him. And I'm sorry, I'm sick of seeing Johnny Depp headline everything he directs now. It's like when Kevin Smith went through his period where Ben Affleck and Jason Mewes were in everything he directed…it loses its fun really fast (with the exception of Jason Lee…for some reason I just never got tired of him).
Still dug Big Fish, though…it had Tim Burton's style without looking like yet another recycled setpiece from Nightmare Before Christmas or Beetlejuice.
It's amazing how many people freaked out over Ben's lists…personally I like when people post lists for their favorite or least favorite whatevers. I like comparing my own picks to theirs and see where we land. Everyone's reaction reminds me of going into a comic store and saying out loud that Hal Jordan wasn't the best Green Lantern (seriously, try it see what happens).
Plus, mad props for salvaging a watchable film after the death of your star!
Don't worry about the asinine comment. No big deal. These type of things are worth passionate debate. You gotta hand it to Shapiro–he's got us talking.
Anyway, I doubt Kubrick (especially later in his career) was in the shop personally fabricating these gizmos and gadgets. Like Spielberg, he had a go-to team of people that he could present either his own specific ideas for technology or a problem he was having that needed new technology.
These guys don't need to be in the shop with a visor and an eye-piece.
They worked much the same way I'm sure: They took existing work-in-progress technology and pushed it, help develop it. They both did that. One can argue that Spielberg learned that trait from Kubrick.
I mean, its not a coincidence that CGI was first used in a Spielberg production "Young Sherlock Holmes" to create a character (all due respect "Wrath of Kahn", the planet video wasn't a "character").
Lets face it, Spielberg was and is all about cutting-edge technology. That's kind of one of his things.
I mean, in his very first feature, he was the first to break in and use Panavision's new lightweight cameras to shoot inside those cars. Sure he didn't CREATE the cameras in some shop somewhere, but he worked with Panavision, relaying his real-world experience. That surely helped shape in their design for future use.
So the notion that he has to have physically sodered the parts together to be as "tech" innovative as Kubrick is silly. Neither really did that.
They don't have to when there are real professionals dedicated to doing so. All they need is a leader to guide them.
They need someone to take what they've done and push it further.
Which means ILM, Kaminski, etc owe Spielberg a debt of gratitude. They presented him with the new technology perhaps, but Spielberg is the one that asked: "What if…" and then pushed them to do better.
But we're off topic. My argument has been that nobody understands film grammar better than Spielberg. Not that nobody understands film technology better than Spielberg.
I must admit, I never saw Straw Dogs. Cross of Iron is at least an above average WW2 movie, and a frequently overlooked one.
Re: Orson Welles
Great list, but you might have the facts wrong about Orson Welles. He didn't "destroy himself and his career," but rather left Hollywood to pioneer independent filmmaking as we know it today. He continued directing through the 1970s, releasing a film every 3 or so years. By my subjective standards, "F for Fake" (1974), "Chimes at Midnight" (1966) and what I've seen of "The Other Side of the Wind" (???) are more entertaining and daring (by today's standards) than "Kane." He also held his later work (especially "Chimes at Midnight" and "The Trial") in higher regard than "Kane." (more follows)
(Part 2)
Perhaps he wasn't as prolific as he would have been had he stayed in LA, and his reliance on self-financing resulted in complications precluding some of his films' release ("Don Quixote," "Wind"), but that doesn't mean he "destroyed" his career. Rather, it means he went to laudably extraordinary lengths (e.g. "Mwaah, the French") to develop his personal vision outside studios' confines, direct scripts he found compelling, and make substantial contributions to film's evolving aesthetic throughout his career.
For what it's worth, I liked the list and especially agree with you about Chaplin, Capra, Wyler and even Spielberg (hey, he made it fun to be a kid in the '80s and '90s).
Ben Shapiro and many of the commentators here have forgotten more about film than this plain old moviegoer will ever know. That said, I love films, too, and so will chime in off the wall on a couple directors I didn't see on either list.
Carroll Ballard: I don't know whether he belongs on a 'greatest ever' list, but I do know that his "The Black Stallion" (1979) and "Nutcracker" (1986) moved me more than almost any other films I've seen (except Fleming's "Wizard of Oz" — those are the top 3 right there, AFAIC).
"Nutcracker" is weird and dark, and yet so is some of childhood; so, for that matter, was Tchaikovsky. Baryshnikov's interpretation is nice and pretty, but Ballard's is the best. As for "The Black Stallion," he put the book (which I loved in childhood) on the screen, and added even more beauty and wonder to it, which is something hardly any director ever has done with any tale.
Speaking of books, and with the caveat that I am a dyed-in-the-wool Tolkien fan of the old school who deeply wishes the old professor–who never had a high regard for drama–had just paid his taxes and not sold the movie rights to his Middle-earth tales so indiscriminately: the director hasn't come along yet who can put those books on the screen the right way, in which the small is celebrated and the great coexists humbly with it, only revealing its true form rarely, like a sudden flash of light in a darkened room, and then quickly hiding itself again, lest the small and weak be corrupted and destroyed by their glimpse at true power. Hardly a popular approach nowadays, but there it is.
A wee bit of camera trickery might be needed to bring Middle-earth up to the screen as it should be seen, but not much, certainly nowhere near as much as has been served up in the decades since the books came out. People are so absorbed by the power of the tale and some of its characters and the huge profit margins to be made off this particular flavor of "Tolkienism," all the wrong people tackle it. They don't understand that it's really just a human story and that doing "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" the right way, the quiet way in which Tolkien told it, would result in the greatest set of movies ever made.
Those movies haven't been made yet, but some day–and the copyright on those rights should run out at about the same time that audiences completely revolt against hyper-FX and -CGI fare–they will be. All the rest has been and probably will continue to be fan fiction. (I used to think "fan fiction" was such a cutting thing to say about these but then discovered at IMDb that people who grew up on the old "Transformers" cartoon like to say the same thing about "Transformers" [2007], which unlike its sequel was a really good movie, though Spielberg was the executive producer not the director on that one [and NO, I'm not nominating Michael Bay for either list]. Old JRRT used to have some trenchant things to say about the difficulty in dramatizing books — you end up with two "Secondary Creations" and that's one too many; some of us get really rankled by the creations that end up on the screen, if they are very different from our own, I guess. But I'll just snark along and accuse Jackson of fan fiction, nonetheless: it's fun.)
Hitchcock being #1 on the other list, and not even considered on this list proves you know nothing of which you speak. Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, North By Northwest, Strangers on a Train, Notorious. 6 of the greatest movies of all time. All Hitchcock.
26? You need to grow up a little.
LOL why didn't Mr. B.S. just initially come out with an article about his favorite directors instead of bashing great directors and then hurrying up to post another B.S. blog to cover up his ignorance AND arrogance?
This article isn't any "better" because he still bashes directors that he praises. Wouldn't just giving credit to great filmmakers have been what these creative minds deserve?
This kid thinks he is an expert instead of just voicing an opinion, so here is some advice:
Think long and hard before you squeeze out a stinking blog for the world to see, and don't get mad or shocked at the world for reacting to your ignorance and half-assed explanations on people 100 times more talented and harder working than you.
If Hitchcock is so overrated why do they have Film Appreciation classes designed solely for Hitchcock films? Why have there been books written such as We Are All Children of Hitchcock..? It's almost like hating an extremely talented, professional ball player because they don't play for your favorite team. Juvenile.
I'm pretty sure if you told Spielberg and Nolan among a few that Hitchcock was the most overrated director of all time they would ask you "Do you really think our 'worst' movies are better than Hitchcock? Don't you know that his style and vision is apparent in all over our films? And who the hell are you again?"
Maybe you didn't get the memo, but not everyone is perfect all the time, including (SURPRISE) your 'blogs'. Hope you take this as constructive criticism, and in the future you do some better research and think a little harder than what your bosses may be influencing you to dump in the media toilet bowl.
Haha, hey list me as a reference, I'd much rather see you writing for Big Hollywood than Mr. BS.
Wait a minute, if I love one of the most ACCLAIMED FILMS OF ALL TIME, I'm in the vast minority?
This makes almost as little sense as the original claim that the film is an abomination!
Um….well, if nobody watches it (which is born out by how rarely it's played on TV and the fact that I see about 3500 rental DVDs a day at work and have seen it a grand total of 1 time), then yeah I'd say that puts you in the minority. Acclaimed by whom? Film critics? The same ones who tell us Michael Moore is a genius and Al Gore's movie was a "must-see"?
Sorry, if you want to tell me it's a beautiful movie that makes you all warm and fuzzy, go ahead. Just don't assume that's the majority of opinion of all movie-watchers.
I respect the craft and think there are some beautiful moments in the film (even sound ground-breaking ones). I also think that for a movie to be a great accomplishment, it should stand up to the test of time. 2001 doesn't because nobody wants to watch it any more. I'll grant your point that it's more majestic on the big screen, but so was Star Wars, which is still a GREAT movie to watch (I just got to share it with my 9 year-old this year who was absolutely enthralled). Movies tell a story. If you're more in love with the crafting of the film than the actual story it tells, how is that any different than thinking Michael Bay is a great director?
so you send out all of the rentals in the entire world? hah… its not only acclaimed by film critics but also by other directors and people that actually are in the business, not people handing out DVD rentals.
so your saying that a movie has to have dialog to be good? well that just stupid.
You knocked Kubrick off the list for the thing you criticized Spielberg for. Jaws is one of my all-time favorite movies — and one of the finest examples ever of how we can be manipulated by pure film. But his only real consistency is the crazy inconsistency of his work. Hook alone should knock him off the list — and get him 5 to 10 in San Quintin.
And now that I've cleared a spot on your list, I'd like to bring up Mr. Howard Hawks. His versatility should put him close to the top. And Rio Bravo should nail it for him.
Oh, and I agree: The Conversation is the creepiest movie ever.
You must be logged in to post a comment.