 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Another insipid "best of" list!10 best American directors (I'm limiting it to American to hide my certain ignorance of foreign directors' bodies of works, and to limit the choices somewhat).
My list (not in any particular order)-
Alfred Hitchcock (remember his "dual citizenshp")
John Ford
John Huston
Billy Wilder
Orson Welles
Woody Allen
Frank CapraThe above were all slam-dunks, as far as I'm concerned, requiring very little thought. The next choices become more difficult - my selections:
Francis Ford Coppola
Charlie Chaplin
Robert WiseAny arguments? Additions? Victor, do you agree that at least the bodies of work of those first seven could stand up to any director in the world?
I gave at the office!
Follow Ups:
My list, not in order except for FordFord
Hitchcock
Hawks
Curtiz
Walsh
Wise
Milius
Wilder
Scorcese
CoppolaOther fellas I rate very high
Vidor
Siegal
Aldrich
Spielberg
Flynn; the Rolling Thunder guy
Fleming
Brooks
Peckinpah
Wyler
DeMille
.
I know Joseph Losey was born in Wisconsin - but I was thinking of saving him for my British list - Duh!I regret to say I've only seen his UK films: The Servant and The Go-Between are quite distinctive, and I remember Accident and King & Country as being fine as well. (But I haven't seen the latter two for a long time.)
I almost put Cukor in my honorable mentions. He made one of my all time favorite films, Philidelphia Story, as well as The Women, not to mention Born Yesterday and The Marrying Kind. His marvelous comedies with Tracy & Hepburn - Pat & Mike, Adams Rib - although they have dated in some respects, are still high water marks. Others, like the melodramas Gaslight, Holiday and Dark Victory, have aged less well.
I guess, in the end, I left Cukor off because he seemed overall...umm...less able to rise above upon his material, seemed to a bit more dependent on his screenwriters for that special spark (and he had some great writers and material during his career). I think, on the whole, he less surely shaped his material, and perhaps lacked the singular, personal vision of a Ford or a Houston or a Hawks. However, where a light, deft touch was needed, Cukor was your man. Call it a distinction between the sometimes great and the truly great.
Oh nevermind, for Philiedelphia Story, The Women, Born Yesterday and The Marrying Kind, Cukor goes into my hononrable mens. ;-0
What? No Text?
I gave at the office!
I am much more familiar with Cukor than Losey but both are remarkable. I would not put them at the Kibrik's level, but given the rest on the list I would see them as very serious contenders for sure. In fact I would gladly put Cukor above Scorsese.
No problem with John Ford, Billy Wilder, John Houston (God, yes!), or Orson Welles. These are all unquestionalby great American directors.I'm not sure about Woody...truly. I'm inclined to leave him out for now. I adore Chaplin and think he is a great director, but I'm not sure he is American in sensibiity, although he made almost all his films in US. He was not an American citzen at any rate. Unlike..Hitchcock...another Brit expat I don't know where to place, is he British or is he American? I think he belongs in any best director top ten...but perhaps in a British list. (Whew)
As for changes...I would have to add Martin Scorsese (see post below), substitute Preston Sturges for Frank Capra, and include Coppola: Apocalypse Now, The Godfathers I & II and The Conversation (my personal fave) cannot be ignored. And although many here will be horrified, I'm going to put in Robert Altman. (I don't feel it necesary that every film in a director's oevre be outstanding, only that a certain number of that group be great - Nashville, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Thieves Like Us, A Wedding, Vincent & Theo and The Player are enough for me.)
The last slots are incredibly hard: I want to include Stan Brakhage, my old teacher, although he doesn't work in narrative cinema. So perhaps I will merely give him a nod of special recognition outside the list of storytellers.
Kubrick has to be on the list. I hate The Shining and EWS, but Spartacus, Dr. Strangelove, 2001, The Killing, Clockwork Orange and (maybe) Barry Lyndon earn him a place in my top ten. I think Spike Lee is one of the most talented filmmakers we have - but has he made an unquestioned masterpiece yet? Do The Right Thing was close.
The last slot is beyond difficult: Howard Hawks is an obvious selection. But what about Elia Kazan? D.W. Griffith? Sam Peckinpah? Stanley Donen? Doug Sirk? John Cassevetes? Buster Keaton? George Stevens? Wise? Wyler? Cukor? Mankiewicz? Bogdanovich? Who????
Nobody's mentioned any documentarians yet either. What about Robert Wiseman? Have any of you ever seen Titticut Follies?
OK. Here goes: (My highly personal top ten in no particular order)
Orson Welles
Billy Wilder
John Houston
John Ford
Preston Sturges
Stanley Kubrick
Martin Scorsese
Francis Ford Coppola
Robert Altman
David Lynch (Take that! Harmonia runs off to don flameproof suit.)Special Lifetime Achievement: Stan Brakhage
Honorable mention:
John Cassevetes
Buster Keaton
Howard Hawks
Woody AllenThe "Oh, how low have the once mighty fallen" Award: Brian de Palma
I think I'll do a separate British list so I can have my cake and eat it too.
So many movies...so little time.
Thanks a lot! It demonstrates how much more there still is for me to learn about the American films. Some names I knew well, with others I had just a periferal familiarity... few I didn't know anything about. As you say - so many movies... is this something you borrowed form me, by any chance? :-))))British films is not my strong point, even though I have seen quite a few. Would be interesting to see the list.
Is your intention to continue providing lists by the country? That would be quite interesting. Any chance of covering Russia at some point in time?
Some day, when life gets normal again, there will be more movies. Until then AMC and TMC are good places to drop in.
And many of the others you mentioned (Mankieiwicz, Donen, Kazan, etc.) were on my short list, too. Actually Kazan may have made it, except I didn't want to get into another "is he an American Director" debate - which happened anyway.Looking forward to your British list.
I gave at the office!
...who, arguably, should be somewhere near the very top of any list of great Ameerican directors. BTW, Chaplin was was never a U.S citizen; originally British, he had his entry permit cancelled in 1952 while on vacation in Europe with his family during the McCarthy "witch-hunts" when film-makers were being asked to rat on their colleagues. He became a permanent ex-patriot, settling in Switzerland. Also, Billy Wilder (1906-2002) was a successful German silent film scenario writer before immigrating here in 1934 after Hitler came to power (Wilder was Jewish) and eventually acquiring U.S. citizenship.I agree with many of the directors on your list, but I'm kind of glad that you're limiting it to sound because I might have to take issue with leaving off D. W. Griffith and Erich Von Stroheim, even though, sadly, they're almost forgotten today.
Among those listed which I'd be inclined to nudge down below the Top Ten are Francis Ford Coppola and possibly Wood Allen; while both are great directors, the formers claim to fame rests a,most entirely on the Godfather series and Apocolypse Now, the remainder of his body of work being rather hit & miss, IMHO. Woody Allen is also a great director, but far too eclectic (i.e., being an acquired taste) for a list of America's greatest, IMO; his work is also hit & miss, although some might be inclined to say take it or leave it! ;^)
Cheers,
AuPh
but surely you wouldn't think of Chaplin as a "british" director, or Wilder as a "German" one?And believe me, my reasons for limiting it to American and sound are more for my limits of knowledge, rather than an intentional slight.
Yes, Coppola was on the edge, just a personal preference, but Woody Allen had one of the most prolific periods of turning out very good to great movies (IMHO, of course) of any director - roughly bookended by Annie Hall and Crimes and Misdemeanors. Sadly, his output since then has been spotty.
And Scorsese to me, fits in with many directors who have directed some very good movies, but their overall body of work is just not consistent enough to be in that top ten.
I gave at the office!
Even his failures are interesting and of a very high caliber, and he's certainly no more hit or miss than the estimable Woodman.OTOH, Scorsese's best films are among the greatest American films of all time - Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas (yes, GOODFELLAS). I'd rather watch one of Scorsese's near misses (Bringing Out the Dead, Age of Innocence, Kundun) than most director's hits (anything by Steven Spielberg or Soderbergh's Traffic.)
Variation in output is not a reason to leave any director off the list...King In New York, Bram Stoker's Dracula, anyone????
but we do agree on Speilberg :). After doing some research since my initial post, I believe I would put Scorsese in the next ten - there are loads of directors who have made very good films, and been spotty otherwise. Scorsese is probably one of the best of those.And yes, Coppola's stinkers are what almost sunk him on my list. That and one other thing. It always bothered me that there was never a screen credit on "Apocalypse Now" crediting "Heart of Darkness" or Joseph Conrad. And I looked closely for one. I think it's OK to adapt, and I think Coppola did a fine job, but it should have been credited. Just wanted to get that off my chest.
I gave at the office!
nt
he absolutely belong in the best list !
First, let me start by adding a couple of names to your list. I would not hesitate adding Stanley Kibrik - I do see him as more American than anything else.I would also add a name I would expect to cause a contraversy - Max Linder. I know, I know, he was born and died in France, but his years in America were productive, and most importantly, he was Charlie Chaplin's teacher and inspiration. Many of his discoveries were later copied by the pale Marx Brothers, albeit without his flair.
Anyway, to answer your last question, I'd say that with the Stanley's addition the US finally gets a crack at joining the ranks of great directors.
Other guys on your list are all good, even very good, and would no doubt do an honor to any country, but as I usually say, the competition for the top spot is extremely strong, and our guys, good as they are, get silver, not gold.
I love the early Woody, he is wonderful, but he is more like Mozart next to the truly deep and monumental giants like Mahler, Beethoven and Shostakovich. Ditto for the other guys. More like a baroque chamber vs. grandiose symphonies.
I like all the guys on your list with one exception - Hitchcock... somehow I never developed any attachment to him, except for his short subjects and his magazine.
And yes, I think Chaplin should be in the first part of your list.
Each of his films was special, an attempt at something different and largely succesful.Disagree about Mozart. Mozart compared to Shostakovich or Mahler-- no way. Not even apples and oranges. French to Chinese food or something on that order.
Woody is much more a lightweight than Mozart IMO. Woody's self absorption is noticeably more obvious in his work than is Mozart's for one main difference.
Like you, I don't have a great affinity for Hitchcock. I've seen most of his stuff, wouldn't care to see it again.
***Disagree about Mozart. Mozart compared to Shostakovich or Mahler-- no way. Not even apples and oranges. French to Chinese food or something on that order.Well, that's the problem with simple one-line analogies... but I am sure you got the jist of my statement. No reason to push the analogy, it is not worth it.
***Woody is much more a lightweight than Mozart IMO. Woody's self absorption is noticeably more obvious in his work than is Mozart's for one main difference.Well, to me some parallel is still there. I see certain light elegance in Woody's work, the kind you see in the Louis XVI furniture, that is unique among the film makers (therefore the Mozart parallel). His self absorption CAN irritate for sure, but his best work is unforgettable. Among which I personally love the Crimes the most.
Like you, I don't have a great affinity for Hitchcock. I've seen most of his stuff, wouldn't care to see it again.
Crimes & Misdemeanors is my favorite Woody as well. ;-)I don't feel that because Mahler is a "heavyweight", that makes Mozart a "lightweight." I perceive no lack in Mozart compared to the very different Herr Mahler. Mozart, though he can certainly sound elegant and pretty to modern ears, is a composer of substance and depth. The forms are smaller, true. But is there less truth or genius in Mozart's music because of that?
Frankly, although I acknowledge his importance, I don't have a great affinity for Mahler - I've heard most of his stuff, and wouldn't care to hear much of it again (Das Lied von der Erde and Des Knaben Wunderhorn excepted). I'd rather watch Rear Window than listen to any of the symphonies.
It was just a quick shot, will do better next time. I know - I will stay with the athletes analogies. Here goes: Mozart can run a 100 meter dash in 9.9 seconds, that is GOOD, even DARN good, but not good enough to win gold!How's that?
I guess if we were to take home something critical and substantive from this discussion, then I would like it to be the fact that one needs to look in a much broader sense before allocating Good, Better and Great labels. As we know, the rest of the world, that is all those insignificant places outside the US borders, are swarming with good directors and films. Some of them so outright good it makes you humble.
Mozart is a small, perfect jewel. Platinum setting...no doubt.Seriously, we love ya! Truly. We just wanna put down Mahler!
but wanted to avoid another controversy. I agree, with him added, it raises the level.Yes, even on this list, how many "monumental" movies are accounted for? Not as many as one would think. I believe it stems from the cultures - Americans by and large, I believe, don't really view films as "art", but as an "event", like a county fair, or a night on the town. Fun, to be sure, but not "life affirming" or "challenging". Even the films like David Lynch's that attempt to be challenging, end up as a confusing mess, more often than not. So, it's back to the foreign film rack at the rental store for art. Of course there are exceptions, but rare ones.
And I admit, I am looking forward to "The Two Towers" as an event, not an artistic experience. I like the events when executed well, but long for art as told from an American perspective.
I gave at the office!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
