Favorite Directors
Submitted by Marquee on Mon, 10/26/2009 - 16:27
Tags:
- Andrei Tarkovsky (Russia, 1932-1986)
- a. Ivanovo detstvo Ivan's Childhood (1962)
- b. Andrei Rublev (1966)
- c. Solaris (1972)
- d. Zerkalo Mirror (1974)
- e. Stalker (1979)
- f. Nostalghia (1983)
- g. Offret The Sacrifice (1986)
- Robert Bresson (France, 1901-1999)
- a. Le Journal d'un curé de campagne Diary of a Country Priest (1951)
- b. Un condamné à mort s'est échappé A Man Escaped (1956)
- c. Pickpocket (1959)
- d. Procès de Jeanne d'Arc The Trial of Joan of Arc (1962)
- e. Au hasard Balthazar (1966)
- f. Mouchette (1967)
- g. Une femme douce A Gentle Woman (1969)
- h. Lancelot du Lac (1974)
- i. L'Argent Money (1983)
- Yasujirō Ozu (Japan, 1903-1963)
- a. Otona no miru ehon I Was Born... But (1932)
- b. Banshun Late Spring (1949)
- c. Bakushū Early Summer (1951)
- d. Tōkyō monogatari Tokyo Story (1953)
- e. Tōkyō boshoku Tokyo Twilight (1957)
- f. Higanbana Equinox Flower (Yasujirō Ozu, 1958)
- g. Ukikusa Floating Weeds (1959)
- h. Akibiyori Late Autumn (1960)
- i. Sanma no aji An Autumn Afternoon (1962)w
- j. Kohayagawa-ke no aki The End of Summer (1961)
- Abbas Kiarostami (Iran, 1940)
- a. Khane-ye doust kodjast? Where is the Friend's Home? (1987)
- b. Nema-ye Nazdik Close-Up (1990)
- c. Zendegi va digar hich Life, and Nothing More... (1991)
- d. Zire darakhatan zeyton Through the Olive Trees (1994)
- e. Ta'm-e gīlās Taste of Cherry (1997)
- f. Bād mā rā khāhad bord The Wind Will Carry Us (1999)
- g. Ten (2002)
- John Cassavetes (United States of America, 1929-1989)
- a. Shadows (1959)
- b. Faces (1968)
- c. Husbands (1970)
- d. Minnie & Moskowitz (1971)
- e. A Woman Under the Influence (1974)
- f. The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976)
- g. Opening Night (1977)
- h. Love Streams (1984)
- Rainer Werner Fassbinder (Germany, 1945-1982)
- a. Die Bitteren Tränen der Petra von Kant The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant (1972)
- b. Angst essen Seele auf Ali: Fear Eats the Soul (1974)
- c. Fontane - Effi Briest (1974)
- d. Faustrecht der Freiheit Fox and His Friends (1975)
- e. In einem Jahr mit 13 Monden In a Year of 13 Moons (1978)
- f. Die Ehe der Maria Braun The Marriage of Maria Braun (1979)
- Carl Dreyer (Denmark, 1889-1968)
- a. La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc The Passion of Joan of Arc (1927)
- b. Vampyr (1932)
- c. Vredens Dag Day of Wrath (1943)
- d. Ordet The Word (1955)
- e. Gertrud (1964)
- Ming-liang Tsai (Taiwan, 1957)
- a. Ch'ing shaonien ne cha Rebels of the Neon God (1992)
- b. Aiqing wansui Vive L'Amour (1994)
- c. He liu The River (1997)
- d. Hei yan quan What Time Is It There? (2001)
- e. Bu San Goodbye, Dragon Inn (2003)
- f. Tianbian yiduoyun The Wayward Cloud (2005)
- g. Hēi yǎn quān I Don't Want to Sleep Alone (2006)
- Honorable Mentions
- • Chantal Akerman (Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles, News From Home, Je, tu, il, elle, Hotel Monterey, Les Rendez-vous d'Anna, La Captive)
- • Charlie Chaplin (City Lights, Modern Times, The Great Dictator, Limelight, Monsieur Verdoux, The Kid)
- • Kenji Mizoguchi (Ugetsu monogatari, Sanshō Dayū, Zangiku monogatari, Akasen chitai, Saikaku Ichidai, Naniwa erejii)
- • Satyajit Ray (Pather Panchali, Aparajito, Apur Sansar, Jalsaghar, Charulata)
- • Orson Welles (Chimes at Midnight, Touch of Evil, The Magnificent Ambersons, Citizen Kane, F for Fake)
nice, you like Bresson? I got to check out the rest of his films. Balthazar was...(amazing).
Yeah, I never fully got Bresson until recently. He basically invented a new visual language with his dedramatizing technique, which always to me seemed to be more of an interesting concept opposed to a meaningful use of cinematic form. I always regarded him as amazing, but it wasn't until recently when I revisited his work it struck me on a whole new level. Silences are emphasized, the characters merely function instead of act and the depths of spirituality are plumbed. As an editor he was just about unparalleled, the way he juxtaposed shots gave equal importance to what was happening on and off screen. His catalog is composed of challenging and demanding films that reveal more about life than any Welles, Hitchcock or Kurosawa film. Previously you said that you felt literature was the most appropriate art-form for the cultivation of ideas, I think Bresson's work is fit to challenge that notion.
I had to reconsider my standing on cinema just because of him.
I think part of film's strength is its ability to communicate very powerful ideas in a short amount of time. There are certain images and sequences in films that last for only a minute or two (or even a matter of seconds) that are perhaps the main idea behind an entire chapter or section of a book. and I think this is why we watch movies over and over again because it often takes a few viewings to really digest everything that is contained in those moments. and when you string those together over the course of a feature film, you have something pretty amazing. but nonetheless, I still think a book is superior at alluding to ideas, only because in a book these ideas are presented in a more clear and rationale manner. a movie really gets under your skin, whereas literature tends to be more detached. and i think that detachment is better for making sense of the world. film has the remarkable tendency to be very ambiguous, which is closer to the truth. take it with a grain of salt of course, it's no dogmatic rule but I feel like it sticks as a generalization.
I think we digest the two art forms differently, in that for me books and films are able to get under my skin equally. They're both equally effective methods of truth-telling and they both equally have the ability to communicate ideas. I don't believe that literature is a more detached art form in comparison to cinema. Milton and Ozu both have the ability to appeal to and engage both my emotions and intellect, granted it's in different ways; but they're on the same playing field.
I think I understand the point you're driving at, but I don't follow the same train of thought. It's interesting to consider, though.
Perhaps the difference is in the means, but the ends are basically the same. They are two different mediums so they certainly work differently. I'm just puzzled at the fact that I will watch a movie again and again, or listen to a record over and over, but when it comes to books...I think the most I've ever read a book is 3 times (Lolita). And that was over the course of 2 years. Poetry is entirely different of course. Anyways, I really think the reason is because of how condensed (or dense) the ideas are in the more 'passionate' mediums. It's not as easy to pick out the ideas because they are all colliding with each other. In books it is often different. There are many ideas, yes, but they unfold in a more linear manner. Though I admit, once you start applying that logic to a really brilliant writer (like Kafka in my case) you might not feel as confident about it. But I really don't think books can affect you as intensely. Consider what can be published in a book. Pretty much anything. The craziest, filthiest, disturbing things I have been made aware of was from books. And you will never see or hear anything like that anywhere else. I guess that's what I mean by detached. It's a less visceral medium, so you can really be extreme therein. And I think that also applies to ideas.
"Perhaps the difference is in the means, but the ends are basically the same. "
Yeah, I agree completely. I don't think I'm really in too much of a position to comment on literature, because I'm sad to say that my reading days have all but completely stopped. But I remember back in the day I used to pour over Ernest Hemingway, Phillip Roth, Joseph Conrad, Henry James, etc trying to absorb everything, from the content to the form. Same goes from Robert Frost, Ezra Pound, TS Eliot, Langston Hughes, etc. I would read and reread. As for linear manner, well, maybe. But there's always something like The Atrocity Exhibitions that defies all previous literary conventions
I understand where you're coming from regarding the inability to see or hear when it comes to books, and how this can lead to a certain detachment. But that's just the nature of the medium, not a flaw. In a sense it can be said that cinema is the ultimate art-form because it collapses all aspects of reality into the camera. But I find well written words can be equally affecting, and I guess that's where we differ.
I'm not sure what you'll think of this, but I think aestheticism is probably the most important thing in art. All a film really needs to be sucessful - is to be well made. Even if it is not particularly socially relevant or psychologically mature, it is still an enjoyable experience. Now, I certainly think that the deeper a film, the stronger it is; but I see that as a kind of afterthought, not the main thing. If a film is not beautifully made, I don't think I would bother exploring it's depths. It should have good acting, nice photography, well-written script etc.
I'm not saying that is all a film needs, but I think it makes up maybe two-thirds of a what is really essential. Maybe it's a testament to my laughable shallowness or perhaps the result of the doltish English blood flowing through my veins, but I really think that if anything is essential, it is technique.
I think aestheticism is crucial in art, but it can be trivial if it's meaningless. I, too, couldn't love a poorly photographed film, or a poorly written book, or a poorly drawn sketch -- even if there's apparent depth to it. I wouldn't waste my time even trying to plumb those depths. Technique is essential, but just being there isn't enough. It has to be used in a significant way.
Aestheticism is tremendously important, but it has to be meaningful. Technical perfection alone doesn't do it for me, it might be interesting but I don't think that in itself could make anything a masterpiece. Just because something is rigorous in its form doesn't mean it's a great work. Superficial beauty doesn't move me, which is why I have an issue with something like 2001: A Space Odyssey. It's a stunning film to look at, but it's mere eye-candy, and that doesn't hold my interest. It's somewhat hollow, the style is meaningless because it says nothing of significance. On the other hand, you have a filmmaker like Bela Tarr whose style governs the substance, he doesn't try to substitute aestheticism for "content". He makes them one and the same. It's not just a massage for the eyes, it appeals to the intellect as well.
I think it's somewhat crippling to judge art purely by what's on the surface. I believe art can change your life, and by approaching it with a lack of critical thought you can end up missing volumes of what's being offered to you. I think, with the true masterpieces of art, that an active audience will get far more than a passive one.
I don't think art can 'change your life', which I see as a somewhat romantic belief. But as for 2001, I think you may have missed what is so great about that film. Kubrick reminds me a lot of Tarkovsky actually, in that a lot of what is great about their films is shown to the viewer, but never told to them. It is sort of implied. No, superficial is not exactly a word I would use when describing Kubrick. Someone like Godard on the other hand, even though I love him, I could understand that. Also, Kubrick and Tarkovsky seem to have pretty different world views and make films about different things. It might be an ideological problem you're having with him.
I'm not sure if you're into philosophy, but I get a real Rousseauist vibe from Tarkovsky.
I don't mean that a single work can alter ones life in an obvious, significant fashion; but I think art has much to offer, and eventually has a cumulative effect. It has the potential to change ones way of thinking about the medium, and by extension life. It offers new perspectives and ideas to consider, it can take us intellectually and emotionally where we have never gone before. By actively engaging art we can allow it to (admittedly subtly) shape our minds. That's life-changing, for me.
Regarding 2001, it's said to have weighty intellectual content but as far as I can discern there really isn't any. I can definitely understand why someone would call it a masterpiece on the basis of aesthetic reasons alone, but it fails to offer much else. That's why it's superficial to me; there's a definitive style there, but that style isn't saying much. It's like writing well-constructed sentences that ultimately say nothing. I'm not saying I want every image to have a profound underlying meaning, that's a ridiculous notion, but I do want more than a formal exercise in aestheticism. And I wouldn't say I'm opposed to some of Kubrick's work on an ideological basis, that is to say I'm not against his "narrative", but I have issues with his form, and what that form means. In the case of 2001 it means nothing and in the case of A Clockwork Orange the style is smug and self-satisfied. On the other hand there's Barry Lyndon, and while I think it errs on the side of visual flamboyance I do feel that he makes it work, despite me still not being a big fan.
Not much of a philosopher, but I did read The Social Contract a few years back. Unfortunately it's too distant a memory to understand where you're coming from.
Marquee, did you ever get a chance to watch Rob Ager's analyses of Kubrick films? I think he makes a persuasive argument for subliminal narrative (and at the very least themes) in Kubrick's work. I would recommend starting with the Shining analysis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEulbcXkgjo
I think Ager convingly argues that most of what makes Kubrick films great is implied by what is being shown. You just have to watch his films.
Gotta say, Kubrick doesn't interest me that much to watch those videos, I could be watching films from filmmakers who I like, instead. I have browsed through his website in the past and, like Elston's recent commentary, I'm just not seeing what everyone else is. And some of it is just ridiculous, like using production photos to prove some meaningless point. I see, and acknowledge, Kubrick's visual excellence; but the intense psychological symbolism that people claim to permeate every Kubrick frame eludes me. The skeptical part of me feels that a lot of these in-depth analysis's seem to be reading into something that's not there.
I'm sure it's me who's losing out, given his title as Bestest Director Ever, but I just can't get behind a lot of work. That's great if you get such a deep reading from his films, but I just don't. Perhaps I'm subconsciously unwilling to, you never know.
I'm not sure why I'm trying to force you to liek him anyway, that's not going to work. Ager is interesting, but he often focuses more on his own conspiracy theories than the actual thematic content of the film (and this is ironic because he forbids any conspiracy-related talk on his website, hehe). Anyways, I think becase you like so many good films I was hoping I could convert you. Otherwise I wouldn't have gotten my panties in a knot.
Ager does overreach at times, but the older I get, the less I am interested in what the director intended. Stopping there seems incomplete (and even frustrating to most academic endeavor). You should probably start there, assuming you have interviews with the director, his/her own writings, and any other reliable information to get to the bottom of it. But then you have directors like Kubrick or Lynch who generally refuse to comment on their own films and give any explanation. I think there is more going on here than hiding the ball or hiding the lack of a ball. I think films -- given the director's choices to do things a certain way, whether it be choice of actor, set design, lighting, and period detail -- all represent things beyond even the director's conscious aims and goals. I believe as long as you can make a persuasive argument for what you see in a film, then your interpretation is prima facie valid. The only thing that can really counter it is all the evidence in the film that undercuts, minimizes, and ultimately contradicts your interpretation. After a series of whittling, you can get to those interpretations that are the most internally sound.
You should not force yourself to like any one's work. I think there should be some interest before you devote yourself to better understanding/appreciating art. If you take Scaruffi's album picks, for example, I did not immediately get Faust or Trout Mask Replica. But I did like bits and pieces of each album so I kept at it, and sure enough they were sensational growers, that have not stopped growing in power and intensity each time I listen to them. If an artwork does really nothing for you, then let it go and give it time. You may never get into it, and that's ok because not everyone is going to like something. It's just the nature of this site (or the internet) that people tend to advocate strongly for their favorites.
In response to your 2nd paragraph, I'll just mention that even though I've liked Kubrick for a long time (about 5 years) I never actually felt like a fully understood his films until just a few months ago, and even know I am still always getting new ideas about his work. Most of his films are to me on the level of a TMR in terms of how interesting and rewarding they are.
I might be a lost cause for the Kubrick Fan Club.
I completely agree, though, in that artistic intent is not paramount. Serendipity is a large part of what makes a masterpiece a masterpiece. I think that the art can be more intelligent than the artist, and it often is. I read somewhere that the work of a thinker can only be as deep as their thoughts; while the creations of an artist can be far more profound than they are. I'm willing to accept that this is a romantic way of seeing things, but I agree. The analysis based only on a filmmakers intent is a scientific approach that dismisses all other aspects of the work, and reduces it to an "answer", and in doing so basically declares the art useless. If it's all about a "point" being made then the artist has wasted his time (and mine) by not coming out and saying it. The individual analysis of the work is in ways more important than the intent, because without an evaluation the art is meaningless. Films aren't complete unless they're interpreted by an individual, they're basically only raw materials until that point.
An album like TMR was fascinating on the first listen; it was so bizarre and cerebral that although I hadn't really grasped it I still had the desire to return to it and dig through its layers. I don't get this feeling from Kubrick's work.
Well, after getting to check out some of the directors I was not familiar with, I gotta say you are 6/6 with this list. Each of these guys is an absolute master and I can't think of any criticism for any of your picks. I also love the fact that they don't get mentioned enough when discussing great directors, and I love that I still have to see a bunch of their movies. Yet even considering that I haven't seen everything, I'm impressed with what I have seen so far. Oh by the way, whose aestheticism do you think is emptier - Kubrick or Ozu?
That actually makes me really happy =). I hope the rest of my selections don't disappoint, be sure to keep me informed.
But come on now, that's not even a fair question, because: a) it's so blatantly obvious and, b) I'm far too biased. Ozu is head and shoulders above Kubrick as a filmmaker, nothing he ever did was empty. Stylistically they're on opposite ends of the spectrum, but I'd sooner gaze at this than this. Ozu's use of form was far less complex, but I feel it was much more meaningful. Of course it's difficult for me to judge on a purely aesthetic basis, due to their specific style and the substance it governs being so inextricably linked in my mind.
Are you finding him to be somewhat empty?
No, I was just taking the piss. I would say they are pretty similar in that they try to make each shot look as interesting as possible, which Ozu did throughout the entirety of Late Spring (quite a masterpiece). As much as I love Kurosawa, Ozu really is the real deal. Kurosawa is often more of a showman. In fact, the only real difference I'm getting from Kubrick and Ozu is a cultural one, with Ozu making very humble & intimate pictures with a love strong love of nature and humans.
By the way, have you seen the Crtierion edition of Late Spring? That thing is pretty beat up. Tons of scratches and what not. But still worth watching as it's an absolutely beautiful and unforgetable film (especially loved the ending!). Anyways, I almost kind of like it when a movie is all beat up and shit.
Man, John Cassavetes is effing amazing. I just watched Faces and although it has some problems, it is so brilliant in a lot of ways. That's the earliest film I've seen of his and I can say he definitely had it at that point in his career. He is almost making me lose respect for certain directors like Tarantino & Paul Thomas Anderson, who try to do similar things as he does but just don't even come close. Mind you, they are perhaps better in other ways like more refined filmmaking however, I cannot for the life of me think of a director who gets better performances than this guy. Not to mention his scripts, which are astonishing in their realism and have tons to say about people and society. I dunno...this guy is surprising the pants off me.
I agree with everything you said.
I love how Cassavetes leaps straight into the heads and hearts of the middle-class nightmare. But he's not criticizing, he goes far beyond that when he makes an attempt at a profound comprehension, he takes a sincere shot at grappling with the mysterious nature of life. I feel the scary part about it is that the deeper he explores, the more the audience (or possibly it's just me) identifies with the characters. Part of the reason that I love his films is their raw nature, they reflect reality, a refined Cassavetes wouldn't be a quarter as powerful in my mind. I completely concur with you regarding his ability to consistently extract top tier performances, saying he's the best to do it really wouldn't be a stretch.
Bresson's theories regarding cinema are totally fascinating. And unlike Fellini, who appeals to me conceptually, I feel Bresson managed to consistently execute on his ideas at a very high level.
That's a good read. I found it particularly interesting how he would take a street scene, and instead of capturing the actual traffic going by would record individual car noises heard in isolation and then paste them together in an interesting way. He also comes off as typically French. One thing I felt upon re-watching Balthazar was the performance of the woman (Anne?), which seemed a bit awkward and forced at times. I think she is very beautiful in an uncanny way, but her performance also came off a little unconvincing at times. As for the rest I thought they were brilliant. In any case, there is nothing I don't like about this guy Bresson so far, and after reading that I like him even more. I'm excited to see some more of his films (just waiting on netflix/zip to send em.)
Yeah, I understand what you mean. She walks a very thin line, luckily the rest of the film is so strong it goes by almost unnoticed for me.
I really liked his views on acting, because they're an extremist version of the current direction my perspective is going. A few months ago I would have praised a performance like Al Pacino in Scarface, or Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot, or Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice to the heavens, but nowadays I'm not too sure. They're obviously very skilled performances, but at the same time they ring superficial. Life is subtle and nuanced; not flashy and flamboyant. I think partly why Bresson's dedramatization is so powerful to me is because it's the exact opposite of the kind of ostentatious performances that tend to garner critical acclaim. There are no characters in his films, just people.
I particularly liked his reasoning for not showing the prison brutality in Pickpocket, it speaks volumes regarding how committed he was to reality.
re: Why do I stress so much over ultimately meaningless rankings?
I have no idea, however, I personally would like to check out only the 'best' directors out there so I do appreciate the effort.
Have you seen Taste of Cherry by Kiarostami? I take back what I said, I can understand why you rate him highly.
Why it's not currently number four is beyond me; it will be rectified. The scene in the storm is unforgettable. Thanks for the reminder.
Where's Opening Night?? And Cassavetes > Tarkovsky.
Wrong, as always.
Is that why you keep deleting your lists?
Tarkovsky isn't approachable as a rival.
Lol. Eat shit. I still love you.
Holy hell the Tarkovsky quote about Chaplin. That man is the most amazing man (they both are).
I'm convinced.
The Holy Trinity: Andrei Tarkovsky, Robert Bresson and Yasujiro Ozu.
All other selections are wrong and will be appropriately treated with derisive laughter.
HEY WANT TO WATCH CARL DREYER'S "MICHAEL" WITH ME?
KIAROSTAMI'S CLOSE UP PLAYS TOMORROW
I AM TELLING YOU SO YOU CAN GET A PLANE OVER HERE RIGHT NOW
WE CAN GET DINNER FIRST
AND THEN MOVIE
I'LL BUY YOUR TICKET.
I'll buy the popcorn, with extra butter
(tell me how you like it)
Anything as long as it's with yoooouuu <3
Aside from Fassbender, textbook Rosenbaum. Are these actually your favorite directors?
I'm interested to know your thoughts on Werner Herzog, more specifically Aguirre, The Wrath of God which unexpectedly blew me away. I would have thought aesthetically he would be your thing? Though that's quite a bold statement as currently I've only seen Aguirre.
THANK-YOU. I can't believe I forgot to mention Aguirre on my Three Hundred list.
I've seen very few of his massive output; that being Aguirre, Lessons of Darkness, Grizzly Man, Nosferatu, The Wide Blue Yonder and Bad Lieutenant. I can't say I'm crazy about his work, I only love the first two I mentioned, and Nosferatu is amazingly crafted. That said: there are a handful of his films that really interest me, such as Cobra Verde, Even Dwarfs Started off Small, The Enigma of Kasper Hauser, Heart of Glass, etc; so I definitely don't think I'm in any position to judge him yet.
To be honest, Bad Lieutenant was quite banal, I saw it soon after Grizzly Man and was surprised by its half-baked nature. I don't know, maybe documentaries suit him, but like I said, I haven't seen enough to really say. I'll have to get back to you, if you see any more of his films drop me a note: he's one of those pantheon directors I really know next to nothing about.
Fitzcarraldo is solid. In fact, I really dug it. I wonder if Bad Lieutenant was meant to be a black comedy. Not to use The Room's excuse, but it plays great that way. Also check out Encounters at the End of the World, good if not great doc.
I don't know, maybe documentaries suit him...
I would agree with this statement, more or less. Fata Morgana is absolutely mesmerizing. Heart of Glass is an interesting, if not always successful, experiment with hypnosis (of the cast, for one, and the audience to a less degree).
Have you watched Conner's Report yet?
Opinionz svp
No =(. I'LL GET BACK TO YOU.
But I recently re-watched the White Rose and it's bestttt.
<3 Hope you like it <3 There's one part that might give you a headache/make you hallucinate. It's also kind of strange to watch a Conner film with actual spoken words. Even if it's in the exact same style as stuff like A MOVIE or Valse Triste, the speaking as opposed to music grounds it in an odd way.
Isn't it though? <3 I would still kill to see Looking For Mushrooms and Cosmic Ray. I am trying to put a swarm of bugs into the ears of the programmer of the art-theatre I'm interning at about Bruce Conner. He died recently so they should do a fucking retrospective! It would only take, like, 2-4 nights to show his whole cinematic oeuvre. I would go to all of those nights <3