|
Josh
|
 |
« on: May 02, 2005, 12:30:27 PM » |
|
The Guardian has compiled a list of the forty greatest living film directors, and wow... this isn't just another silly list. This is a very intelligent, thoughtful feature, ranking each of the directors in a number of different categories (substance, look, etc.). The fact that the Matrix guys made the cut is kinda sad-- especially since Peter Jackson is missing!-- but, overall, their choices make sense. Among those included: Miyazaki, Wes Anderson, PT Anderson, the Coens, Scorsese, David O. Russell, and many other smart picks. Conspicuously absent: Clint Eastwood and Terry Gilliam.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2005, 12:33:10 PM » |
|
Oh, and hey... where's Woody Allen?
And Robert Altman?
And why the heck are Alexander Payne and Steven Soderbergh so darn high?
Some significant complaints, I guess, but I still think it's a good list. I was especially glad NOT to see Ron Howard and George Lucas.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2005, 02:30:40 PM » |
|
George Lucas - yeah, he's faltered, but he still helmed "Star Wars" back in the day.
I like the list. Nice to see some of my favorites up there.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
enemy anemone
|
|
« Reply #3 on: May 02, 2005, 02:56:42 PM » |
|
I don't understand the omission of Peter Jackson.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2005, 03:36:28 PM » |
|
I don't understand the omission of Peter Jackson. Leaving him off the list would be forigveable if it weren't for the fact that they had the audacity to include the guys who did The Matrix. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2005, 04:17:20 PM » |
|
Yeah, and David Lynch at number one! "Mulholland Drive" was very good, but I tend to think you might really need more than what he's done to justify such a placement.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
bethany
|
|
« Reply #6 on: May 02, 2005, 04:53:34 PM » |
|
Yeah, and David Lynch at number one! "Mulholland Drive" was very good, but I tend to think you might really need more than what he's done to justify such a placement. Really? Eraserhead, The Elephant Man, Dune, Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks, Wild at Heart, The Straight Story, Lost Highway, and Mulholland Drive... that's a pretty impressive and consistently excellent filmography. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #7 on: May 02, 2005, 05:10:12 PM » |
|
Twin Peaks wasn't such a great move, and neither was Dune, IMO (for the former, I much prefer the early TV series, the latter is just a bit cheesy looking to these eyes). Also, Mulholland Drive was a 2001 movie, so the pick doesn't seem very timely given the other choices for directors had much more recent, quality offerings. Finally, I thought "Lost Highway" was sort of aimless, actually.
I'm not knocking him. I like quite a bit of what he's done. I'm just not so sure #1 above Scorsese is a good place. JMHO.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 02, 2005, 05:18:46 PM by bloop »
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #8 on: May 02, 2005, 05:18:27 PM » |
|
The only Lynch film I've seen is Dune, which I didn't like at all. I've got a copy of The Elephant Man coming this week via Blockbuster, and I suppose I should add Mulholland Drive...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #9 on: May 02, 2005, 05:22:49 PM » |
|
If you'll have a problem with "Mulholland Drive", it'll have to do with the lesbian licking scene. Some consider it rather gratuitous (I'm pretty certain that it does have a point, but I'm only so certain about anything in that film).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
bethany
|
|
« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2005, 05:53:02 PM » |
|
If you'll have a problem with "Mulholland Drive", it'll have to do with the lesbian licking scene. Some consider it rather gratuitous (I'm pretty certain that it does have a point, but I'm only so certain about anything in that film). That and the scene on the couch I suppose the amount of "content" shown could be argued to be gratuitous, but I think the scenes in and of themselves are certainly justifiable in their inclusion and importance to the story. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
AldaForPresident
|
|
« Reply #11 on: May 02, 2005, 07:14:31 PM » |
|
That is a pretty great list, although Scorsese should be number one. Of course, I've only seen one Lynch film, but I still doubt he deserves to be number one over Scorsese.
Why IS Alexander Payne so high? I also think Soderbergh and Moore are too high.
I'm pleasantly surprised to see Tarantino so high up, and to see David Fincher at all. No Spike Lee is pretty surprising. I'm not a big fan or anything, it just seems like he would be there since he's fairly prominent. I don't even know if I've seen anything he's done. And no Allen is just ridiculous. I've only seen two of his films, but it seems crazy that he wouldn't be on there at ALL.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2005, 07:19:26 PM » |
|
Woody Allen really is the most glaring omission here, I think, unless you want to make a case for Spielberg (which would be reasonable; I mean c'mon, the man gave us Raiders!).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
AldaForPresident
|
|
« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2005, 07:22:30 PM » |
|
Woody Allen really is the most glaring omission here, I think, unless you want to make a case for Spielberg (which would be reasonable; I mean c'mon, the man gave us Raiders!). I thought about Spielberg but then I forgot to see if he was actually on the list. He probably should be there somewhere - not sure where - also. But I definitely agree about Allen. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
