post ur list, in order...

1 - ford
2 - kubrick
3 - allen
4 - peckinpah
5 - scorsese

__________________
http://twitter.com/theloniousfunk
http://havetravelled.blogspot.com
http://instagram.com/arsonwelles

“Be uncomfortable; be sand, not oil, to the machinery of the world.”
- Gunter Eich

Scorsese
Spielberg
Ford
Welles
Huston

...and even then I can't rank them. So, alphabetically, here's mine -

Woody Allen - http://imdb.com/name/nm0000095/
Fatty Arbuckle - http://imdb.com/name/nm0000779/
James Benning - http://imdb.com/name/nm0072159/
Budd Boetticher - http://imdb.com/name/nm0091430/
John Cassavetes - http://imdb.com/name/nm0001023/
Elia Kazan - http://imdb.com/name/nm0001415/
Albert Maysles - http://imdb.com/name/nm0563099/
Nicholas Ray - http://imdb.com/name/nm0712947/
Raoul Walsh - http://imdb.com/name/nm0909825/
Frederick Wiseman - http://imdb.com/name/nm0936464/

1. Stanley Kubrick
2. Howard Hawks
3. Robert Altman
4. Martin Scorsese
5. Steven Spielberg

And because I wanna cheat
6. Orson Welles
7. Woody Allen
8. John Cassavetes
9. Brian De Palma
10. Sidney Lumet

___________________________
OL' DIRTY BASTARD on himself:
"I may curse, I may have a bad mouth, whatever whatever. I'm not that bad, yaknow'mean. Bad to y'all, I dunno how y'all... I don't give a fuck. Um, I'm a good person at heart, for real and shit.

gimme billy wilder, preston sturges, hell even john huston over him any day of the fuckin week.

edit: also..why no ford? the thing is i dont even particuarly like many of his films, but i cant ignore his body of work.

__________________
http://twitter.com/theloniousfunk
http://havetravelled.blogspot.com
http://instagram.com/arsonwelles

“Be uncomfortable; be sand, not oil, to the machinery of the world.”
- Gunter Eich

.

But yeah, not American

The topic is "American Directors", not "American-Born Directors". Which Turkish films did Kazan direct?

It's very easy to make a case for Kazan as an American director, that was tight on my part. Billy Wilder gets tough because he didn't come to the US until he was 27. Born, raised and educated outside of the US. I guess I have a more stringent criteria for what an American director is. I don't think you can just wash away the first 30 years of somebody's life and call them an American. Can Peter Jackson ever be anything but a New Zealand director? I don't care in how many American movies Hugh Jackman stars in, to me he will always be an Australian actor. Maybe I'm just being closed minded, but I put a lot of emphasis on where people grew up.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

doesn't mean his style was the "most american".

>edit: also..why no ford? the thing is i dont even particuarly
>like many of his films, but i cant ignore his body of work.

First, I'm w/ ya on your Bergman comment in another thread about him being such a consistent filmmaker. Well, I think that was you, LOL. You peeped "Scenes From A Marriage"? - one of the greatest films of all time, IMHO. I still have to peep "Saraband." If I'm not mistaken, he revisits the same "Scenes..." couple at a much later period in their lives. I think people see "Seventh Seal" and make the mistake in thinking everything he does is like that. Post a Bergman thread.

As for Hawks, there are few American directors who did high quality works in mutliple genres. Hawks has created some of the best works in each genre he tried his hand at. He wasn't overtly innovative, but he wasn't a pedestrian or paint-by-numbers director. A Hawks film noir or Western is distinct from other works in the respective genres.

He is a no-nonsense director, but yet has as much an artistic vision as Bergman or Antonioni - it's just not visually as discernable as other respected "auteurs." Many books convincingly argue for Hawks as an artist and not artisan. A straightforward aesthetic is still an aesthetic. Same like no-style is a style.

I'm not trying to convince you to like Hawks, but if you respect Ford's body of work and not necessarily like him and yet rank him high...the same could apply to Hawks. Yet, I understand he still may not be as high on your list if you apply that to him.

film noir: Big Sleep, To Have and Have Not
Western: Rio Bravo, El Dorado, Red River, Big Sky
comedy: Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, Ball of Fire, Scarface
action: Scarface, Hatari, Air Force
musical: Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
sci-fi: Thing From Another World

>>edit: also..why no ford? the thing is i dont even
>particuarly
>>like many of his films, but i cant ignore his body of work.
>
>First, I'm w/ ya on your Bergman comment in another thread
>about him being such a consistent filmmaker. Well, I think
>that was you, LOL. You peeped "Scenes From A Marriage"? - one
>of the greatest films of all time, IMHO. I still have to peep
>"Saraband." If I'm not mistaken, he revisits the same
>"Scenes..." couple at a much later period in their lives. I
>think people see "Seventh Seal" and make the mistake in
>thinking everything he does is like that. Post a Bergman
>thread.
>

yeah that was me...saraband isnt that great really...but i guess if u love SFAM u pretty much have to see it, just for some sense of closure.


>As for Hawks, there are few American directors who did high
>quality works in mutliple genres. Hawks has created some of
>the best works in each genre he tried his hand at. He wasn't
>overtly innovative, but he wasn't a pedestrian or
>paint-by-numbers director. A Hawks film noir or Western is
>distinct from other works in the respective genres.
>
>He is a no-nonsense director, but yet has as much an artistic
>vision as Bergman or Antonioni - it's just not visually as
>discernable as other respected "auteurs." Many books
>convincingly argue for Hawks as an artist and not artisan. A
>straightforward aesthetic is still an aesthetic. Same like
>no-style is a style.
>

i can see that..but...the diff. between hawks and ford is that although im not a big fan, some of ford's work has moved me..i wasnt really a believer in john ford until i saw My Darling Clementine..that shut me right up...now, i cant say that once i saw that, i went back and fell in love with the searchers, she wore a yellow ribbon, grapes of wrath, (none of which i like especially) etc...but i started to get what everyone was talking about...

hawks hasnt done shit for me. i went into things like to have and have not and bringing up baby expecting big things, but was bored to tears on both accounts...
also seen parts of his girl friday, red river, big sleep..none of it moved me in the least.

so as objective as a try to be, i have to at least have seen something by a director that moved me to start considering him for the top 10.i mean i cant concieve of their being some great director whose made many films but not one of them appeals to me..id have to leave said director off my list even if he was confirmed as the world's greatest ever by everyone else..sorta like how i shrug at the hitchcock love.

__________________
http://twitter.com/theloniousfunk
http://havetravelled.blogspot.com
http://instagram.com/arsonwelles

“Be uncomfortable; be sand, not oil, to the machinery of the world.”
- Gunter Eich

>so as objective as a try to be, i have to at least have seen
>something by a director that moved me to start considering him
>for the top 10.i mean i cant concieve of their being some
>great director whose made many films but not one of them
>appeals to me..id have to leave said director off my list even
>if he was confirmed as the world's greatest ever by everyone
>else..sorta like how i shrug at the hitchcock love.

"Top" in terms of best, greatness, favorite, etc.?

What I'm trying to say is I distinguish b/w "best," and "favorite." Some say that you cannot have one w/o the other in evaluating, but I think I can for the most part. I mean under "best" I can rank them according to favorites and under "favorite" I can rank them according to my opinion of greatness, under "best" I can rank them according to what I think is well...best, etc. It can go on and on. I know it's not 100% fool proof, but I still make the distinction.

What you feel about Hawks, I feel about Welles. Probably the only film he's ever done that has gotten a strong emotional reaction out of me is "Chimes at Midnight."

The rest of his films I've seen have moved me intellectually or I've been in awe of the visuals, but nothing emotional. I see the greatness in his storytelling.

That is not to say I don't think Welles' films aren't great. And I'd rank many of them in a best list, but I don't know about in a favorites list.

I'd rank Welles in the top 5 of best American filmmakers, but in a favorite list...I don't think he'd place top 5 for me.

Martin Scorsese
Hitch
Ford
Hawks
Altman
Morris
Coens
Welles
Quintin
Spielberg

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

But... whatever. Lists are stupid.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

T.Mallick
B.Wilder
S.Spielberg
E.Kazan
S.Kubrick

------------------------------
For the record, my teams:
MLB: Mets / Soccer: PSG
NCAA BB: Arizona / NCAA FB: Michigan
NBA: Spurs / NFL: Jets

And Wilder is Austrian

though Kazan is generally considered American in the articles I've read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elia_Kazan

------------------------------
For the record, my teams:
MLB: Mets / Soccer: PSG
NCAA BB: Arizona / NCAA FB: Michigan
NBA: Spurs / NFL: Jets

if he actually made more than one movie every four years.

__________________
http://twitter.com/theloniousfunk
http://havetravelled.blogspot.com
http://instagram.com/arsonwelles

“Be uncomfortable; be sand, not oil, to the machinery of the world.”
- Gunter Eich

hell naw

except for wells

but having a writer-director is better than an actor-director like wells, IMO

people talk about all these directors as if they all wrote their own scripts. which they didn't. people give them too much credit. but Tarintino is the real deal in that respect

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

>except for wells
>
>but having a writer-director is better than an actor-director
>like wells, IMO
>
>people talk about all these directors as if they all wrote
>their own scripts. which they didn't. people give them too
>much credit. but Tarintino is the real deal in that respect

Coppola made an interesting point about what he felt showed a director's true skill and talent - if he/she can take someone else's written work and create a great film. To translate someone else's vision is a gift and in some respects could be harder and more impressive than directing a film based on a script that you yourself wrote.

When you wrote the script, you know the story and characters so intimately that you have an advantage if you direct it.

And on the other hand, not all great directors have the ability to write a good script.

Either way, a great film is what counts.

in fact it is the MAIN job of the director
but still, a huge part of how good the film is, is how good the script is to start with
and Tarantino's scripts are excellent to start with (let's ignore the Kill Bills)

with Tarintino you have a brilliant writer AND a brilliant director, which is distinctly adventageous

Scorsese writes a lot of his own stuff, he seems to be comfortable making films like that, but I think his writing ability is clearly not as strong as his directing ability.

>>except for wells
>>
>>but having a writer-director is better than an
>actor-director
>>like wells, IMO
>>
>>people talk about all these directors as if they all wrote
>>their own scripts. which they didn't. people give them too
>>much credit. but Tarintino is the real deal in that respect
>
>Coppola made an interesting point about what he felt showed a
>director's true skill and talent - if he/she can take someone
>else's written work and create a great film. To translate
>someone else's vision is a gift and in some respects could be
>harder and more impressive than directing a film based on a
>script that you yourself wrote.
>
>When you wrote the script, you know the story and characters
>so intimately that you have an advantage if you direct it.
>
>And on the other hand, not all great directors have the
>ability to write a good script.
>
>Either way, a great film is what counts.

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

?

__________________
http://twitter.com/theloniousfunk
http://havetravelled.blogspot.com
http://instagram.com/arsonwelles

“Be uncomfortable; be sand, not oil, to the machinery of the world.”
- Gunter Eich

the second film which was the more dialogue heavy was also blatant shit as a finished product

almost everything that you would say made a tarantino film great was brutally impaired in these films

so i ignore it. no point in holding someone's bad work against them.

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

In coming up with this list, I decided to include some directors who were not born in America, but whose contributions to American Cinema make them impossible to ignore. How could I, for example, make a greatest American Directors list without Alfred Hitchock? He wasn't born here, but Vertigo, Notorious, and Rear Window were.

With that said, here's my list (and these are not in any particular order):

1. Howard Hawks
2. John Ford
3. Orson Welles
4. Alfred Hitchcock
5. Charles Chaplin
6. Fritz Lang
7. Ernst Lubitsch
8. Josef Von Sternberg
9. Vincente Minnelli
10. Anthony Mann

(I confess the last two are extreme favorites of mine. I suppose they ought to be replaced by Buster Keaton and D.W. Griffith, but I can't help myself).

>How could I, for example, make a greatest American
>Directors list without Alfred Hitchock? He wasn't born here,
>but Vertigo, Notorious, and Rear Window were.

Would that make Sofia Coppola a Japanese director?

>>How could I, for example, make a greatest American
>>Directors list without Alfred Hitchock? He wasn't born
>here,
>>but Vertigo, Notorious, and Rear Window were.
>
>Would that make Sofia Coppola a Japanese director?

Has Sofia Coppola made the majority of her films in Japan? Has she worked there for decades and made an endless stream of masterpieces under their flag?

No.

Why don't you stop policing everybody's posts? It's making you look like an asshole.

Be nice.

>Has Sofia Coppola made the majority of her films in Japan?
>Has she worked there for decades and made an endless stream of
>masterpieces under their flag?
>

This is a different criteria than the one you set forth earlier. But I think it's irresponsible to put Hitchcock under anything but "their" flag.

Hitchcock was born in England
Hitchock was raised in England
Hitchcock was educated in England
Hitchcock spent the first 40 or so years of his life in England
Hitchcock made about 25 movies in England
Hitchcock's parents were British
Hitchcock's wife was British
Hitchcock remained a British subject all his life
Hitchock was knighted in England


>Why don't you stop policing everybody's posts? It's making you
>look like an asshole.

I'm not clowning people and I apologize if it seems like I am. I just think that sometimes people post here without realizing things. Billy Wilder was 27 before he came to the US. Does his entire birth, upbringing, education and professional life as an Austrian just fly out the window because he made some great Hollywood films? I say no. It would seem that other people are either unaware of his background or willing to say that it does. If they say it does, I would like to engage in a spirited conversation about it because I disagree. Certainly a better argument can be made for Kazan. If my policing makes me look like an asshole then I'm sorry, but some of these other posts make people look ignorant.

that i always wondered about..i mean, is a film's nationality based on that of the director, the production company, the language spoken in the film, etc? is i am cuba a russian or a cuban film? and then once u decide that, and lets say u decide its production company..can u say someone like hitchcock made american movies and therefore is an american director even though he lived as an englishman? can we just assess him as an american director, discussing only his american films then, and not the 20 or so u mentioned he made in england? is polanski a polish director? i dont know the answers to any of these questions, but i'll say for the sake of this thread, id consider someone like wilder to be an american director.

__________________
http://twitter.com/theloniousfunk
http://havetravelled.blogspot.com
http://instagram.com/arsonwelles

“Be uncomfortable; be sand, not oil, to the machinery of the world.”
- Gunter Eich

John Woo fits well into it also. Is there a point where someone will start calling him an American director?

Just like Hitchcock's are American

best example would be Fritz Lang whose best work crosses over.

If Woo makes even better films in the next 20 years, will people call him an American director? It's a good example because it's a work in progress and we can't be revisionist about it. And also remember that some of Hitchcock's classics were pegged as pieces of shit at the time they came out and only later could Vertigo measure up to and ultimately surpass The 39 Steps.

Edit: Also, you're almost saying that in order to determine whether or not a director is American we'd have to check the critical consensus on which of his films were more respected. Like we should check with AFI and some film schools before we can determine if somebody is American. Does that mean if I like Face/Off better than Hard Boiled that John Woo can be an American director to me and a Hong Kong filmmaker to you?

..of great Amerian directors. given that so many of his defining films would've been made in the U.S. within an American studio system, with American content, actors, crew, etc.. in a sense he's already an American director. Just not a great one.

But given his output as an HK director, I don't think that anything he does would exclude him from being mentioned among notable HK filmmakers.

Just like I see no reason to keep Fritz Lang off a list of notable Amerian OR German directors.

>best example would be Fritz Lang whose best work crosses
>over.


Born in America.

Lived in England.

Most (all?) of his films were filmed in England.

and (I wasn't around then but I'm assuming) his films were released stateside first.

>>Has Sofia Coppola made the majority of her films in Japan?
>>Has she worked there for decades and made an endless stream
>of
>>masterpieces under their flag?
>>
>
>This is a different criteria than the one you set forth
>earlier.

Not at all.

>
>Hitchcock was born in England
>Hitchock was raised in England
>Hitchcock was educated in England
>Hitchcock spent the first 40 or so years of his life in
>England
>Hitchcock made about 25 movies in England
>Hitchcock's parents were British
>Hitchcock's wife was British
>Hitchcock remained a British subject all his life
>Hitchock was knighted in England

I know all of that. But the fact remains that Hitchcock made his mature films in the arena of American Cinema. And to acknowledge this doesn't mean we erase his personal history.

I put Hitchcock, Lang, Chaplin, Lubitsch, and Von Sternberg on my list not because I'm ignorant or dismissive of their beginnings, but because they directed some of the greatest american films of all time.

It's like this. Fritz Lang was born in Austria. His films up to the early 30s were made in Germany. He was a German director, in spite of his birthplace. M, Metropolis, Dr. Mabuse: The Gambler, are all "german films".

But he goes to America to get away from the Nazis. So then he's directing films in America, in the American film industry. "You only live once" "Fury" "Hangmen Also Die", "Scarlet Street" etc. Incredible stuff.

So no matter where he was born or where he worked in the past, I can't leave Fritz Lang off a great american directors list when he happens to have directed some of the greatest american films over the course of three decades!

It doesn't make sense to me to leave him off the list and put a lesser director up there just because the other director was american-born. Wouldn't that just be putting the ugliness of american nationalism into the wholesome process of list-making? Let's not sully up our lists with such backwardness.


>Billy Wilder was 27 before he came to the
>US. Does his entire birth, upbringing, education and
>professional life as an Austrian just fly out the window
>because he made some great Hollywood films?

Of course not.

>Certainly a better argument can be
>made for Kazan.

I hate Kazan no matter where he's from. That son of a bitch could be from Mars and I still wouldn't like him.

>some of these other posts make people look
>ignorant.
>

I wouldn't say that.

>Not at all.

Your argument implied that because Hitchcock shot the film in America, he is an American director. I don't think you explained it well. My intention of the Coppola example was hoping that you would expound on your statement. Which you did.


>It doesn't make sense to me to leave him off the list and put
>a lesser director up there just because the other director was
>american-born. Wouldn't that just be putting the ugliness of
>american nationalism into the wholesome process of
>list-making? Let's not sully up our lists with such
>backwardness.

You have a lucid argument which I completely disagree with. I think it's backwards to call Hitchcock anything but British. We obviously have a difference of opinion here. So just to make sure, you're saying that now John Woo is now an American director? What about Polanski? I'm not talking about American nationalism here at all, I'm talking about how I define nationality. To me, in order to be an American director, someone has to be American. Call me crazy. It seems to be something completely different to you.

>>some of these other posts make people look
>>ignorant.
>>
>
>I wouldn't say that.

I would. If people don't at least acknowledge that they are putting Hitchcock (a very British director to me) on a list of American directors, I think it makes them look ignorant as if to say they aren't aware that Hitchcock is British. All you have to do is listen to one interview with the guy and it's pretty obvious.

>I hate Kazan no matter where he's from. That son of a bitch
>could be from Mars and I still wouldn't like him.

He deserves your scorn. But East of Eden is a very good film.

--------

hell-below.com

>>I hate Kazan
>He deserves your scorn. But East of Eden is a very good film.
>

It's good and so is On The Waterfront, Viva Zapata, and A Tree Grows In Brooklyn.

But I just don't like him as a director. I think when he succeeds, it's generally in spite of himself.

And for the record, "Panic In The Streets" and "A Streetcar Named Desire", two of his best-loved films, are wildly overrated. Panic turned out to be a pretty dull movie even with a storyline that could've provided some real excitement (not to mention the great cast). And Streetcar would be entirely unwatchable if not for the outstanding performance of Marlon Brando. He's almost the only reason to see it, and even then it's not a totally enjoyable experience.

I'm really surprised that Kazan is turning up on so many of the great american directors lists.

His achievments are minor at best, especially when considered alongside his contemporaries. From the mid 40s when he began to the 60s, Kazan has nothing on people like Ford, Hawks, Hitchcock, Welles, Lang, Minnelli, Sirk, Anthony Mann, Nicholas Ray, Preminger, Preston Sturges, Walsh, Boetticher, Siegel, Siodmak, Wilder, and more.

And if you open the discussion up to include "foreign filmmakers". . . Kazan is so bad compared to the likes of a Visconti, Rossellini, or Kurosawa, that it's almost embarrassing.

He's just not that good. Also, he named names. So to hell with him.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

Particularly Streetcar being overrated. It would be a turgid, stagey mess if not for Brando. That said, I don't think directors get enough credit for great performances and Kazan certainly knew how to draw the goods out of Brando.

--------

hell-below.com

I love almost everything he's done.

A couple of his excellent melodramas (Some Came Running and Home From the Hill) are coming out on DVD later this year.

Also, a couple of musicals of his which I have not seen (Ziegfield Follies and something else) are coming out in April.

--------

hell-below.com

He didn't even start his career in America much less born in it. I mean if Hitchcock gets considered than ANYONE can, f'n John Woo is an American filmmaker all of a sudden.

.stanley kubrick
..francis ford coppola
...spike lee
....terrence malick
.....martin scorcese OR
.....quentin tarantino

1

------------------------------------------
REP MUZIK, TIL DEATH DO US:
http://www.myspace.com/boxcutterknow1edge
http://www.soundclick.com/boxcutterknow1edge

.

how can y'all front on david lynch? IMO he's by far the greatest of all time...

"when's the last time you heard a funky diabetic?"

there seems to be some confusion on that

anyway if not..

1. Hitchcock
2. Hawks
3. Lang
4. Scorsese
5. Wilder

Marty
Kubrick
Spike Lee
Fosse (yes, over John Ford)
Welles
Wilder
Spielberg
Lumet
Malick
Eastwood (yes, over John Ford)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
<----- Daddy's Comin' Home.

(and no, you can't click the link)

in no particular order

Spielberg
Scorsese
Tarantino
Coppola
Eastwood

My Ever Growing DVD list

http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=scott757

*******************************************************
i will not let finite disappointment undermine infinite hope
- Cory Booker

Football is a simple game; 22 men chase a ball for 90 minutes, and at the end the Germans always win
- Gary Lineker

In the entire history of American cinema? Spike Lee's one of the top five directors? Not even close.

He's definitely in my top 20.

___________________________
OL' DIRTY BASTARD on himself:
"I may curse, I may have a bad mouth, whatever whatever. I'm not that bad, yaknow'mean. Bad to y'all, I dunno how y'all... I don't give a fuck. Um, I'm a good person at heart, for real and shit.

..because they don't have Spike listed as one of the top 5 directors of all time

.

___________________________
http://www.unclebens.com/

1

------------------------------------------
REP MUZIK, TIL DEATH DO US:
http://www.myspace.com/boxcutterknow1edge
http://www.soundclick.com/boxcutterknow1edge

1. Robert Altman
2. Woody Allen
3. Preston Sturges
4. John Ford
5. Orson Welles

If I can include foriegn directors that worked in America it would look like this:

1. Alfred Hitchcock
2. Charlie Chaplin
3. Robert Altman
4. Woody Allen
5. Preston Sturges
6. John Ford
7. Orson Welles
8. Francis Coppola
9. Billy Wilder
10. Martin Scorscese/John Cassavettes

and lol@the third hand hate

i have only seen Smoke and The Joy Luck Club but i've never seen anyone render emotions as richly as Wayne Wang

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

TIER ONE

Chaplin
Ford
Griffith
Welles
Hawks
Hitchcock


TIER TWO

Stroheim
Altman
Kubrick
Allen
Lubitsch
Sturges
Minnelli
Sternberg
Lang (if his German work was included he’d be top tier)


TIER THREE

Coppola
Wilder
Curtiz
Wyler
Scorsese
Peckinpah
Malick
Keaton
Capra
Ashby
Lynch
Mann
Sirk

--------

hell-below.com

I read that he's working on an updated version adding some filmmakers.

Not sure if he'll be changing categories and deleting filmmakers.

It'll be interesting to see what he has to say about Kubrick and Coppola if such revisions are in his scope for the update.

King Friday, he's adding Richard Linklater

>I read that he's working on an updated version adding some
>filmmakers.
>

This could be good. No harm in adding directors post-1968.

And if the whole thing turns out to be a mistake. . . then I still have my copy of the original book.

>It'll be interesting to see what he has to say about Kubrick
>and Coppola if such revisions are in his scope for the
>update.
>

Check out this link of all his "top ten" lists from 1958 to 2001. Maybe there will be some clues as to what we might expect to see in the new book:

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ejohnson/critics/sarris.html

>King Friday, he's adding Richard Linklater
>
>

lol.

By the way, did you hear that Criterion is releasing Dazed And Confused this summer? It's true. Heard it from their official newsletter.

(again, Linklater in the 90s is great. After that, not so much).

>And if the whole thing turns out to be a mistake. . . then I
>still have my copy of the original book.

LOL.

It's pretty funny when he jokingly said he decided to update it when he decided he's going to live forever.

>>It'll be interesting to see what he has to say about Kubrick
>>and Coppola if such revisions are in his scope for the
>>update.

BTW, where would you put Kubrick in the Sarris categories? I myself don't know where I'd put him.

>Check out this link of all his "top ten" lists from 1958 to
>2001. Maybe there will be some clues as to what we might
>expect to see in the new book:

Yea, I came across that valuable link sometime ago...good point.

>By the way, did you hear that Criterion is releasing Dazed And
>Confused this summer? It's true. Heard it from their
>official newsletter.

Yup, the Austin Film Society's website confirmed it, too.

>(again, Linklater in the 90s is great. After that, not so
>much).

I guess Sarris feels the same, he said in Aug 05 (I think) that he's putting Linklater under "Far Side Of Paradise." I don't know if that's changed since.

>BTW, where would you put Kubrick in the Sarris categories? I
>myself don't know where I'd put him.

I actually think Sarris got it right with Kubrick when he put him in the Strained Seriousness category.

I've always said the major problem with Kubrick is that his personal style developed not out of the way he used his technique to tell his stories, but in the way he used his technique to create a style.

His famous perfectionist approach to directing succeeded in creating a large number of very beautiful, meaningless images. It also sucked the very life and spontaneity out of his movies.

I like "The Killing", "Paths Of Glory", "Lolita", "Dr. Strangelove", "Barry Lyndon" and "The Shining".

And that's most of his films. But all of those films have their problems. And Kubrick always seems to pay more attention to the more decorative elements of movie-making than he does to the actual human beings in his movies.

Give me the practical, unassuming approach of Howard Hawks over Kubrick any day.

>Linklater in the 90s is great. After that, not so
>>much).
>
>I guess Sarris feels the same, he said in Aug 05 (I think)
>that he's putting Linklater under "Far Side Of Paradise." I
>don't know if that's changed since.
>

I'd have to think about that. Far Side Of Paradise wouldn't be so bad I guess. (Only I get the feeling he's about one bad movie away from Expressive Esoterica).

5 faves

1. Wiseman
2. Maysles brothers
3. Engel (and Orkin)
4. Keaton
5. Francis Ford Coppola

nm
actually its not so bad, but not the same as it would be now

__________________
http://twitter.com/theloniousfunk
http://havetravelled.blogspot.com
http://instagram.com/arsonwelles

“Be uncomfortable; be sand, not oil, to the machinery of the world.”
- Gunter Eich

>nm
>actually its not so bad, but not the same as it would be now

Fact

I know its not artsy enough to name Spike Lee, but
he is without hesitation one of the 3 or 4 best of
the last generation

easily




----------------------------



O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.


"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

do we got to pull out the big ol "R" word

I don't know why white ppl have a hard time seeing Spike as an auteur. I just watched Mo Better Blues the other night and he had some amazing shots. He's not seen as an artsy director but his chops are there wide and clear.

they hate that he IS artsy, has social themes and political messages in his films, doesn't drive points or messages home for them, and calls out hollywood's whiteness. so they point out contradictions like the army commercials and claim he focues on race too much. ironically, as he toned down many of the overtly social and political themes, movies like 25th hour and inside man got respect. yet, as he returned to his core on Miracle in St. Anna he got shitted on for the ending, the fantastical relationship between "the giant black man" and the boy and unspecific battles zones, lol.

Not including him in your top 5 of all time is not the same as sequestering him to some sort of also-ran category.

He just doesn't simply have the consistently high-level body of work to go head-to-head with the greatest American directors. Maybe by the end of his career he will. I think he's made a couple masterpieces, some solid films, and a lot of misfires. He's got a few decades to knock a few more out of the park and put himself in the pantheon.

--------

hell-below.com

.

.

______________



http://www.windimoto.com


http://ten2one.wordpress.com/ <-FEB

http://wallpapershi.net/wallpapers/2012/01/boba-fett-star-wars-star-wars-boba-fett-movie-anime-1080x1920.jpg

only three people, and, im assuming they're black like me, named spike! LAUGH OUT FUCKIN LOUD! by the way, hitchcock was a fuckin euro! my goodness. yall really hate on this dude. i mean seriously, yall are terrible.

spike
spike
spike
spike
and spike just to be an ass

Oliver Stone, Jim Jarmusch, The Coen Brothers, Steven Soderbergh and Robert Altman round out the top 10.

Am I the only one that was CHANGED after watching JFK? That movie is so damn powerful!

Stone is probably one of the most Hit-or-Miss cats I can think of.

______________



http://www.windimoto.com


http://ten2one.wordpress.com/ <-FEB

http://wallpapershi.net/wallpapers/2012/01/boba-fett-star-wars-star-wars-boba-fett-movie-anime-1080x1920.jpg

Kubrick
Scorcese
Spielberg
Coppola
Stone
............
Eastwood
Coens
Jarmusch

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*Effasig*

---------------------------------------
http://i32.tinypic.com/34iqvz8.jpg
The OKP® King of the Late Pass™

facebook.com/lamont.dozier
---------------------------------------

Kubrick
Hitchcock
Capra
De Palma
Lee

1.Spike Lee
2.John Singleton
3.Tyler Perry
4.Quentin Tarantino
5.Judd Apatow

<==Hawtastic.