Hmmmm... No one has mentioned Luis Bunel yet. Definitely one of the greats.

Hmmmm... No one has mentioned Luis Bunel yet. Definitely one of the greats.
I tried to like his work, but he makes it so hard. The ending of Diary of a Chambermaid was unforgivably bad. If anyone did that today, he would be committing commercial suicide. His works are supposed to be scathing satires, but I think it they lack bite by today's standards.

Peter Greenaway perhapse? Billie wilder?

I tried to like his work, but he makes it so hard. The ending of Diary of a Chambermaid was unforgivably bad. If anyone did that today, he would be committing commercial suicide. His works are supposed to be scathing satires, but I think it they lack bite by today's standards.

Erm... Diary of a Chambermaid was Renoir not Bunuel. And I would definitely say Bunuel's work has plenty of bite by today's standards.

Erm... [I]Diary of a Chambermaid[I] was Renoir not Bunuel. And I would definitely say Bunuel's work has plenty of bite by today's standards.
Bite this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058249/) :)

Wow. I thought you were talking about Renoir's version (which was abominable), and I didn't even know Bunuel had done a version of it (why would be another question).
I looked it up and people were indeed calling it his weakest moment by far. Including the commissioned movies he had to make just to put bread on the table...

Try Un Chien Andalou and see if that has bite. Tee hee...

But seriously Emre, he did some truly great movies.

Try Un Chien Andalou and see if that has bite. Tee hee...

What a groaner! I shouldn't have set up that joke.

Sorry Emre!

No, but seriously, Buñuel made some of the wildest movies around. For example, his L'Age D'Or was banned in France for 50 years (until 1979) and caused riots when it was first shown. But most of his stuff doesn't seem to have ever had great commercial potential, as it is pretty surreal (not surprising as he was one of the original Surrealists). And he never lost his personal edge.
While my views may run counter to many, I would personally nominate him as one of the greatest directors of all time.

David Lean for 'Lawrence of Arabia'. A four hour twenty masterpiece.

Sure it's over 40yrs old. Every shot perfectly framed. An epic of all proportions made in the days when film makers made films the hard way battling against natures elements. In this case the desert with it's dust storms, heat and chilling nights.

No computer effects to get you out of a hole, and, if you needed a cast of thousands you hired a cast of thousands.

As a footnote: In the extra features on the dvd Steven Spielberg says it's the film that inspired him the most as a boy. He likes to replay it before making a film.

John Cassavetes, hands down the best director in my book. A woman Under the Influence, Faces, Opening Night, Husbands, The Killing of A Chinese Bookie, Shadows, etc. etc.... the man was special.

Francois Truffaut is great. The 400 Blows, Jules and Jim, Shoot the Piano Player, etc.

John Ford is wonderful. The Searchers is by far one of the most emotional movies I've ever seen. That last shot of Ethan and the others standing in the doorway brings chills.

Orson Welles, of course! Not only for Citizen Kane, but just look at Touch of Evil, The Lady from Shanghai or F for Fake....

Woody Allen too. I don't care if some of his recent movies aren't 'Great'... he gave us Annie Hall, Manhattan, Sleeper, Bananas.... he earned his respect!

And I'm suprised no one mentioned Ingmar Bergman!

For me, it would probably be Kubrick who is the greatest. The stories are thought out and layered, the screenplays are perfect, the philosophy is sound, the science impeccable, the cinematography first rate, the editing first rate. He did make a couple of casting mistakes but that's the only flaw I know of in any Kubrick film. He should have never cast Sellers as Quilty, nor Ryan O'Neal as Redmund Barry. I think 2001 is the film of the 20th century - the one essential film.

I also like Fellini - Juliet of The Spirits is one of my favorite movies of all time. Boorman's Point Blank, Hope and Glory, Deliverance, The General - perfection. I even like Zardoz. And Herbert Ross - Pennies From Heaven, The Turning Point. And Ken Russell - even his failures are fun to watch, if painful. But The Devils, Women In Love - perfect and potent works of art. Sidney Lumet - has he ever made a bad film? I don't think so.

Spielberg did not appeal to me personally in the least until Minority Report. Up until that point, I had never suspended disbelief in one of his movies. I always sat there wondering why he expected us to buy his crap - but, of course, people did. With the exception of Schindler's List, I could never understand why anyone went to see his movies.

Hmm, I don't think there could ever be a "best director" of all time. There are too many genres that some director's either never try or are just not good at. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses and many are not able to translate their natural strengths into material they are not comfortable or familiar enough with.

Judging from the great and wonderful list we've all seen so far through this thread I can say that there are many great directors, each of whom have at the very least contributed to the cinematic artform which is itself without limit.

As well, each filmmaker adds to the growing vocabulary of cinema and each breakthrough or innovation is going to spread out and inspire other filmmakers to new ideas or variations on ideas, therefore can any director really be considered the "best" if he has been inspired by the works of others? Naturally though, someone can be thought of as the best for a personal reason.

I have my favorites, many of whom have been mentioned and I don't need to reiterate any names already mentioned, but I would like to mention the following:

Ousmane Sembene - Senegal
Feroz Khan - India
Jean Renoir - France
Pedro Almodovar - Spain
Sergio Leone - Italy

I love film but unless I was able to watch each and every film ever made, regardless of origin, genre and language, I don't think I could formulate a proper opinion of who I thought was the best.

My 2c,

K.

Joe:

I forgot about Cassavetes! Add him to my post!

IMO, there is no single best director, but one not yet mentioned who I love is John Huston. "Badges, we don't need no stinkin' badges!"

I also love Kubrick and use him all the time to downplay awards as
a true indiction of achievement. Stanley never won an Oscar!!!

Jacques:

It's "Bodges". Hahahahaha!

The question of who is the best director can only be dictated by the personal experience of the actors and crew who work under that director, actors or crew may like certain directors over others for their communication or lack there of etc etc, at the end of the day the director is there to direct cast and crew in which case the question really is which director makes the best films......and that is down to personal opinion.

If you asked a regular joe public who directed king kong or the usual suspects and asked them what other films they directed i would bet good money they would have no clue

Andy.

I'm sure I'll be alone in this, but.....

I love Clint Eastwood as a Director. I'm sure acting for as many years as he did would have to have an effect on directing, but to me, the shots, feel, and look of the films he directs are incredible. Unforgiven, IMHO, is one of the best shot movies of all time. When I say shot, I am talking about, locations, camera angles, lighting, color, feel, etc.) Pretty much everything under the director's hat.

IMHO
Bryon <><

I still have to say Luis Buñuel and second Guy Debord...

I have to respect Spielberg as one of the best b/c of "Munich." Flawlessly acted and Spielberg's need for at least a few minutes of heavy-handed sentimentality was absent.

I also believe that Robert Redford's directing portfoilo has exemplary work: "Ordinary People" and "A River Runs Through It."

Alan Smithee. Really, who else would you pick as the world's greatest director of all time?

good thread! kurosawa because he's the first internationally respected asian director =). i'm asian and i wanna be a director one of these days. thus, he's my Sensei in the truest sense.

7 sam. is my fav. film of all time and yesh i have the 3 disc criterion edition... as well as in HD >). my fav. part of his works has to do with the humanity he injects into his works.

2nd fav. director is orson welles+citizen kane. even though it was "one-hit-wonder" i really think he could have achieved the greatness yet again if it hadn't been for hearst.

2nd fav. director is orson welles+citizen kane. even though it was "one-hit-wonder"

I beg to differ with this characterization of Welles as a "one-hit wonder." "Touch of Evil," "The Stranger," "The Magnificent Ambersons," even "Macbeth" and "Mr. Arkadin" all came after "Citizen Kane" and all illustrate the man's genius.

Keep in mind that very few of Welles' films were released the way he wanted them, as he fought countless battles against the studio system of the day. Without Welles, I doubt there would be an independent cinema in America today, or at least it would look extremely different.

And don't forget Welles' work in live theater and radio, too, just to add to his resume'.

Alan Smithee. Really, who else would you pick as the world's greatest director of all time?

Certainly the most prolific. He's had a very long career, too. Still going strong at what... 108, 110?

that is why i said one hit wonder. i didn't really mean it in a derogatory sense. i just meant that it is the one film in which he had complete artistic control over. it's the one film that was truly his. the rest... got taken away from him. i dunno what other idioms i could use to describe that scenario.

yesh, i'm well aware of his previous achievements.

this has more info about orson welles's non-film works from The Mercury Theatre:
http://www.mercurytheatre.info/

he was also an accomplished painter, poet and writer, etc. he is truly one of the great American genius artists of our time. it's going to be very difficult to have another human being like that ever again.

Keep in mind that very few of Welles' films were released the way he wanted them, as he fought countless battles against the studio system of the day. Without Welles, I doubt there would be an independent cinema in America today, or at least it would look extremely different.

And don't forget Welles' work in live theater and radio, too, just to add to his resume'.

My favorite is always Akira Kurosawa, Cecile B Demille.

Gotta be someone like Michael Hanike or The Dardenne brothers. The Son (le Fils) is probably the best movie I have ever seen.

Obviously names like Godard and Felini are right up there, as are, funnily enough, names like Kubric and Spielberg, but my Money is on Hanike or the Dardennes (they might lose cause there are two of them).

Kurosawa is also right up there.

Im amazed theres six pages on this subject...i sure aint read them all, what do you actually mean by best director? do you mean the best films? in that case its like asking whos the best musician ever.... i like the who but a lot of people like justin timberlake who i hate and i don't like jaz much. Or do you mean who is the most successfull? hmmm in that case there are only a handfull and they are all as big as each other....you know who they are. or is it the best director to work with? only the people under them can know that.....the runners and the dop's and the lighting guys , iv heard michael bay is a real bas##rd to work for but what do i know i just like his films.

its a redundant question, why not ask whats your favourate films.

The director is a guy/girl that works with a LOT of other people to make a film look good its not all his/her triumph, not enough recognition goes to the other people that get things done like joe bloggs that threaded a hundred thousand plastic rings etc to make the chainmail vests on lord of the rings.

Sure, why talk about the director at all. Afterall, if it wasn't for craft services, there wouldn't be a movie. Not to mention the Teamsters. And the guy who runs the machine that puts the plastic on the DVD case. With all them folks, who needs a director

Right?

funny you should mention craft services, in indie filmaking at least they are the most important factor in keeping cast and crew happy and im sure its important on big movies. The director has a hard stressfull job as does the producer and exec producer, every person in every department relys on each others skills, a great job by the camera department or sound department can be for nothing if any of the other departments aren't up to scratch. On a Hollywood movie its a guarentee that all departments are as good as they can be but with any indie film its up to who the best person you can get. The bottom line is a good director needs a good crew behind him wether it be a small crew or a huge crew. The fact still remains the director is a part of a bigger picture....he may be in charge but the requirments for skilled people is no less and the director can't make the film on his own.

Do you think steven speilberg would put the plastic on his DVDs? he'd probably screw a lot of them up before he got it right.

Andy.

People are just naming their favorite directors, and why they are their favorites... Don't see anything wrong with that.
If you know call it the 'best director' thread or the 'favorite director' thread, anyone will know what you are talking about, a little bit stupid to whine about that... Everyone has his *best* director: it's their favorite, the one they *mostly* enjoy their movies a lot.
The director is still most of the time the one who's *vision* ends up on the screen.

Let people have this discussion, it's enjoying.

Matthew, curiously to see someone from another far country mention The d'Ardenne brothers (from my country). I personally don't like their movies that much, they are good in what they do, but I like more stilistic movies.
Still, nice to see they are so well known.

I don't mean to sound like im whineing, I guess its because when my company makes films im the only one who knows how to work a camera, edit , light and put all the equipment together which basicly makes my job a lot harder than anyone elses but the director gets the credit.

But you're right it is usually the directors vision that ends up on screen, i do sometimes wonder how certain films would look if someone else had directed them.

I'll say no more

Andy.

i do sometimes wonder how certain films would look if someone else had directed them.

That's a whole other question, and it would provide for an interesting discussion as well.

i dunno who said this, but theatre is an actor's medium, tv is the writer's and film the director's. does this still hold true today?

i'm so sure. i think there's a lot of mixing and blending these days. lots of film film directors like barry sonnefield are coming to TV (he directed pilot for pushign daisies and it looks like a film) and TV directors going to film and both going to theatre and back forth. same with actors+writers.

in all these artistics mediums it's the team that does deserve a collective award, but then isn't what the best picture, play, tv, etc. the final award of the night should be for the collective team responsible for the art.

having said of all that, i think it is still pretty true. if you've been watching mad men on amc lately, the writing comes through loud and clear even if the other dept. are doing a very fine job. same with theatre, great actors get repeat viewing from theatre nuts no matter the title. films still LOOK a certain way even if the director changes DP, like david fincher. you are still watching a david fincher film.

I kinda agree with Andy here.
Every movie is a combination of efforts. Stanley and Ridley instantly jump to my mind. If we are going to specify director here, it would have to go to Stanley, as when I think about the two big Ridley works (Alien/Bladerunner) it is clearly the cinematography that comes to mind. Yes there is powerful direction, but it clearly has its ups and downs compared to the cinematography which in both films is near perfect. Does this equal direction?
I do not believe anyone has mentioned Terry Gilliam yet. He deserves a strong mention. Brazil and The Adventures of Baron Münchhausen, are both brilliant works of art. I personally believe that any director that can pull you out of the "norm" and place you in an alternate time/place so convincingly is truly a great director. Gilliam clearly does this with great style and flare, and often reflective humor.
Anyways please add Gilliam to the pile ;>)

For me the greatest would have to be Kubrick. Lori is right with the notion that 2001 : A Space Odyssey is the film of the 20th century. It was simply mind blowing and still is!

Other directors I rate for one reason or another are :

Michael Mann : Fantastic action sequences and excellent choice of music.

William Friedkin : The guy was warped but brilliant at scaring people.

Frank Darabont : Beautiful work.

James Cameron : The Abyss kinda does it for me.

Has to be Harold Heckuba.
I mean who could top Hamlet-A-Go-Go!

This is so wierd, but none of my favorite directors have gotten much (if any) mention here.

My "A" List is:

Joel Coen - Barton Fink is one of the best films ever made.
Quentin Tarantino - modern genius. Pulp Fiction was amazing.
Terry Gillliam - for almost everything he's ever done. Just don't watch "Tideland" and you'll be fine. :)
David Lynch - I usually don't understand his movies. Maybe that's why I like them.

My "B" list is:

Spielberg - just for profligate production of good films.
P.T. Anderson - never disappoints.
Ridley Scott, with a few exceptions.

Terry Gillliam - for almost everything he's ever done. Just don't watch "Tideland" and you'll be fine. :)

Funny, I just saw "Tideland," and really liked it!

Also, although I wouldn't put him in the same category as Kubrick, Kurosawa, or Kiezlowski ("the Killer K's!"), Jim Jarmusch has always been one of my personal favorites. Ditto John Sayles.

FWIW, the Guardian(UK) recently published an article on (in the editors' opinion) the top 40 living film directors. You can find it here:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/page/0,11456,1082823,00.html

There's some overlap with this list, but also some folks who do not show up in this thread.

Funny, I just saw "Tideland," and really liked it!

Also, although I wouldn't put him in the same category of a Kubrick, Kurosawa, or Kiezlowski ("the Killer K's!"), Jim Jarmusch has always been one of my personal favorites.

FWIW, the Guardian(UK) recently published an article on (in the editors' opinion) the top 40 living film directors. You can find it here:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/page/0,11456,1082823,00.html

I didn't hate Tideland as much as most people did, but as a story, it seemed to fall apart for me at the end. A lot of people were put off by the dead dad, and also (understandably) the references to childhood sexuality. Neither of those bothered me as much as just not understanding what the point of it all was.

Which is to say, I don't think Tideland was a terrible movie, and it was definitely a courageous one, but most people wouldn't like it, and I don't really blame them, because it is way, way out there.

I didn't like Tideland either.
I didn't have any problem with the dead dad and the sexuality, I really think the controversy about that was WAY overblown, it didn't bother me at all.
I just found the movie to be boring... Really boring, and don't get me wrong: I don't have anything against slow movies, but nothing much happened...

I didn't like Tideland either.
I didn't have any problem with the dead dad and the sexuality, I really think the controversy about that was WAY overblown, it didn't bother me at all.
I just found the movie to be boring... Really boring, and don't get me wrong: I don't have anything against slow movies, but nothing much happened...

Yeah, I've never read the book, but it looks like there might have been a problem with the adaptation. Or maybe it's one of those books that just shouldn't be made into a movie. Either way, it's not his best work.