Best Director of our generation (1975-Present)

[IronDragon1]

Scorsese's made way too many great films for me not to pick him.

[jacki]

Um, Tarantino maybe?
Don't know if I'd vote for him, but at least have him in the conversation.

And what about Michael Mann?

[fluxrad]

Scorsese.

insert dumbass end of thread comment here.

[SpearsBritney]

Jules Jordan

[IronDragon1]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, Tarantino maybe?
Don't know if I'd vote for him, but at least have him in the conversation.

And what about Michael Mann?

[/ QUOTE ]

GLARING OMISSION ALERT: Crap, I can't believe I left him out of it. Consider him the default "other"

Michael Mann I'd lump in with someone like Taylor Hackford or Robert Rodriguez

They do something good but every once in a while do something sucky (and don't compensate for it)

But yeah, my bad for leaving out Tarantino

[Vince Young]

Kubrick

[Macdaddy Warsaw]

You can also include Kurosawa since he's made some recent films.

[jacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Kubrick

[/ QUOTE ]

him too.

[bwana devil]

dude, you can't say youre voting for Scorcese at the top of your own poll.

and Tarantino doesnt even get a nod?

bwana

[a500lbgorilla]

Ridley Scott pwns j00!

[YourFoxyGrandma]

I'm not a big Scorsese fan. I'd vote Kubrick, but his better films are pre '75 IMO. My vote goes to Tarantino.

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
Woodly Allen

[/ QUOTE ]

Who?

[Yobz]

[ QUOTE ]
Kubrick

[/ QUOTE ]

And it is not even close.

[CCass]

There are lots of good directors listed, and a couple of good ones that were omitted (R Scott, Tarantino, etc), but Spielberg is the best director IMO.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kubrick

[/ QUOTE ]

And it is not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TStoneMBD]

i wouldnt have voted for him, but what about george lucas?

[YourFoxyGrandma]

[ QUOTE ]
i wouldnt have voted for him, but what about george lucas?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone would've voted for him.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
You can also include Kurosawa since he's made some recent films.

[/ QUOTE ]

his most recent one was Dreams right before he died in 91. but from 75-91 he made Kagemusha, Ran(maybe his best film), Maddidaio(I butchered the name of it), and Dreams. He is one of my favorite directors, but I think his death in 91 and the fact that he wasn't as active as he once was might narrowly take him off this list

[KDawgCometh]

I think that speilberg is too happy of a director(as in his films are generally uplifting, sans Schindlers List), so my vote goes to Marty. Just look at his filmography since 75 and you really have some serious films. Ragin bull, Taxi Driver, After Hours, Last Temptation, Good Fellas, Casino, Gangs of NY, Aviator, Age of Innocence, Cape Fear, and the Last Waltz. I mean how easy of a choice is this. I am surprised that Robert Altman wasn't included in the list

[Rockatansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kubrick

[/ QUOTE ]

And it is not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

And Tarantino has absolutely no business in this discussion.

[jacki]

[ QUOTE ]


And Tarantino has absolutely no business in this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the most influential movies of the '90s. We can talk about him.

[MasterShakes]

David Fincher strikes me as an omission, though probably not a glaring one. He directed Seven, Fight Club, The Game, and Panic Room. Obviously hasn't been around long, but the track record certainly ain't bad.

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can also include Kurosawa since he's made some recent films.

[/ QUOTE ]

his most recent one was Dreams right before he died in 91. but from 75-91 he made Kagemusha, Ran(maybe his best film), Maddidaio(I butchered the name of it), and Dreams. He is one of my favorite directors, but I think his death in 91 and the fact that he wasn't as active as he once was might narrowly take him off this list

[/ QUOTE ]

Seven Samurai and Rashomon were both better better than Ran. Not close.

I voted Spielberg. I'm not a big Scorsese fan and his last film (most recent in my mind) doesn't help him at all. I like Kurosawa, Polanski, and Coppola much better, but Seven Samurai, Rashomon, Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, Godfather, Godfather pt II, and other great ones by them were all pre-1975. After discounting those there's just not enough left to put any of them over Spielberg. Spike Lee definitely gets a courtesy nod from me though.

GoT

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kubrick

[/ QUOTE ]

And it is not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

And Tarantino has absolutely no business in this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

except for that part where he should be the clear choice as winner of this poll, and isnt even in it.

[IronDragon1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Woodly Allen

[/ QUOTE ]

Who?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some guy I know who directs amateur porno out of his basement

EDIT: Good God I can't type

[deacsoft]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, Tarantino maybe?



[/ QUOTE ]

[andyfox]

With all due respect, you're comparing those films to the best films of Eastwood, Scorsese, Speilberg, Copppola or Polanski?

A more glaring omission might be whichever Coen brother directs their films.

[pryor15]

we're forgetting our time period here...

kubrick's best work was pre 75 (2001, dr. strangelove, etc.) we're looking at 4 films after 75, and one of them was released in 75.

QT? please. he's lucky to be a top 5 director who's first film was released post 1990.

George Lucas directed a grand total of 3 films in this time period, the first Star Wars, and the last 2. which means he's directed one good film and 2 absolute pieces of trash.

Marty's an obvious choice, as are Eastwood, Spielberg, Coppola, and Ridley Scott, although i voted for Woody Allen, as i think he's got a stronger overall resume here (annie hall, manhattan, etc.) In my opinion, he owned the 80's.

Fincher? you're kidding, right? i love fight club as much as anybody, but he's not even close to being in the discussion. if you're gonna talk about fincher and QT, you have to include P.T. Anderson, Wes Anderson, Richard Linklater, Robert Rodriguez, and the rest of the indie generation. but, what's that you say? they don't belong in this discussion? exactly. neither do those 2 (or soderberg, for that matter)...at least, they don't yet. not even close.

glaring omission: Krzystof Kieslowski, who released 14 (!) films from 1988-1994, all of them brilliant...Sydney Pollack could be in this discussion, as could Warren Beatty, and without a doubt Robert Altman...Jean-Pierre Jeunet could be considered...there's a couple others, but i can't think of them off-hand.

[andyfox]

When I saw Ran, I had a hard time physcially getting up from the seat in the theater at the end. Absolutely electrifying.

[ilya]

These are some of the directors who've made something I've really liked in the last 20-30 years:

Robert Altman ("Nashville," "McCabe & Mrs. Miller," "Gosford Park")
David Lynch ("Twin Peaks" mostly)
Woody Allen (the earlier movies)
Wong Kar-Wai
Guy Maddin ("Saddest Music in the World")
Ridley Scott (original "Alien" only)
Quentin Tarantino
Michael Haneke ("Funny Games")
Martin Scorcese ("Mean Streets" only)
Stephen Chow ("Kung Fu Hustle")

Lots of others I'm forgetting right now, I'm sure.

My point is, I have no idea who I think the best one is, and I don't really mind that I have no idea.

[PokerFink]

My thoughts.

1) I really like Fincher, and as I was reading this thread I was hoping no one else would mention him first. He isn't the best director, but he deserves recognition.

2) Kubrick, for all his amazing work, didn't do much after '75. His only films after '75 are Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut. Obviously some good films there, but not a very large body of work for the time period being considered. Whether or not he should still qualify can be debated.

3) Tarantino belongs in this discussion. Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece, and Kill Bill contains some fantastic direction. Whether or not you like Kill Bill is your own opinion, but anyone who says its direction isn't great has no clue.

4) Joel Coen is the director. He deserves to be on here as well.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


And Tarantino has absolutely no business in this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the most influential movies of the '90s. We can talk about him.

[/ QUOTE ]

no more influential than "Slacker", in the end, and we aren't talking about Linklater.

[andyfox]

It's hard to vote for Woody Allen because he's made so many dreadful movies and so many with a horrific moral message.

I voted for Spielberg because of his influence on the business and in the business, even though I'm not a big fan of his movies. Certainly Allen's resume pales beside his (Jaws, ET, The Color Purple, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List).

[PokerFink]

Hey I like Wes Anderson too, but if you are going to say Kubrick doesn't belong because he has only four films, then you can't include Wes Anderson either. (Or Tarantino, Fincher, and a lot of others with only a few good movies to their credit).

[andyfox]

It's rumored Allen has his leading ladies film sex scenes that he has no intention of using. Whether true or not, the fact that some people think it shows the depth to which Allen's reputation in Hollywood has sunk.

And with good reason.

[pryor15]

it's tough to argue against Spielberg, obviously, but i think we forget these days just how influential woody was in the 80's and the "annie hall" era. this is a guy whose fingerprints are all over the place, and let's not forget is tied w/ billy wilder for oscar noms for writers/directors.

i don't know how you make an argument against Spielberg, though.

i still say Kieslowski should be on this list.

[pryor15]

exactly. if you're looking for the best director of a 30-year period and you've got guys like spielberg, allen, marty, etc, who've made 10+ very good films (or thereabouts), then someone like QT, Wes Anderson, etc, who've got 4 films to their credit are going to have to have 4 absolutely brilliant films to even be mentioned. and they don't have that sort of resume. while kubrick's undeniably one of the greatest directors ever, his best work is clearly prior to '75, which doesn't diminish him at all, it's the tail end of his career.

i'm saying Wes Anderson, PT Anderson, etc, don't belong in this discussion, and neither does QT, for the exact same reasons. Soderbergh's borderline, but mostly b/c he's got so many more films.

best case scenario, QT's got 3 films worth mentioning (Reservoir, Pulp, and Kill Bill). the rest of the list has many, many more. hell, there are contemporaries of his who aren't on this list and have a more impressive resume over the same time period.

[PokerFink]

I don't think Soderbergh belongs. He only has two really noteworthy directing jobs (Traffic and Erin). The directing in Oceans 11 isn't great.

Tarantino's directing is SO good at times that it's hard to ignore him.

Otherwise, I definitely agree with what you're saying. I think I misinterpreted your first post a bit.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Soderbergh belongs. He only has two really noteworthy directing jobs (Traffic and Erin). The directing in Oceans 11 isn't great.

[/ QUOTE ]

sex lies and videotape is well-directed, and i think 'solaris' is as well. i'd throw 'the limey' and 'full frontal' in there as well, not so much b/c full frontal's very good per se, but it's definitely an ambitious director's film. and 'out of sight' is, well, probably the best j.lo performance we'll ever see.

i wouldn't argue to add him, but since he's already there, i can understand why.

[-Skeme-]

Where is Kubrick?

[PokerFink]

I admittedly have not seen some of these. I didn't really like Solaris, although I can't say I paid much attention to its direction. Just watched it one night when I was bored. Ditto Out of Sight.

[pryor15]

i'm a director, so i find it kinda hard to miss. the direction on both of those is much better than the actual films. ditto for erin brockovich

[Pocket Trips]

its an absolute travasty Scorcese is not winning this in a landslide but to be losing to Speilberg?

C'mon people!!!! name ONE film other than Schindler's list or Jaws that speilberg directed that was absolute pure fluff!

[Pocket Trips]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kubrick

[/ QUOTE ]

him too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kubrick's career started in the 60's i would assume he is a little old to be xonsidered here... but definatly a great director.. one of the best ever but not of "our generation" as defined by this thread

[Pocket Trips]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


And Tarantino has absolutely no business in this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
One of the most influential movies of the '90s. We can talk about him.

[/ QUOTE ]

no more influential than "Slacker", in the end, and we aren't talking about Linklater.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you serious???? how many non-hardcore movie people saw slacker vs. pulp fiction or resevior dogs

not saying that b/c more people have seen tarantino's work that its better... but tarantino has definatly been more influential

[Pocket Trips]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Woodly Allen

[/ QUOTE ]

Who?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some guy I know who directs amateur porno out of his basement

EDIT: Good God I can't type

[/ QUOTE ]

amatuer INCESTUOS porn

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
are you serious???? how many non-hardcore movie people saw slacker vs. pulp fiction or resevior dogs

not saying that b/c more people have seen tarantino's work that its better... but tarantino has definatly been more influential

[/ QUOTE ]

'slacker' was hugely influential when it came out. without it, we don't have 'clerks' and a slew of other films made for <100K. it wasn't as big and glamorous as 'pulp', but long-term you could argue it had a comparative impact. it doesn't matter if the general populace saw it, b/c the "hardcore movie people" who did see it are the ones that are making the indie films of today.

the point, though, is that we aren't talking about Linklater or kevin smith, even though they have comparative resumes, so why QT?

one big influential movie does not make you the best director of your generation. just ask Michael Cimino.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]

one big influential movie does not make you the best director of your generation. just ask Michael Cimino.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're ruling out Reservoir dogs and Kill Bill I & II?

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

one big influential movie does not make you the best director of your generation. just ask Michael Cimino.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're ruling out Reservoir dogs and Kill Bill I & II?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, but when that's the sum total of your films (and i won't even get into why dogs and kill bill aren't exactly cinematic masterpieces), there's no logical way you can be included in the same sentence as scorsese, etc.

it would be like comparing coldplay with, say, bob dylan.

could QT become the best director of his generation? yes. is he there now? no. is he the best director between the years 1975-2005? absolutely not. to even suggest he might be is insulting to so many other directors.

think about this: over the 12 years since Dogs came out, QT has made 3 films of note (dogs, pulp, and kill bill). in those same 12 years, scorsese has made 4 or 5 (age of innocense, gangs, casino, aviator, and bringing out the dead), and that's universally considered the weakest part of his entire career. Woody Allen has 8 (although none are outstanding). Spielberg has at least 4. and they've all got substantial leads on QT prior to '92.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]


no, but when that's the sum total of your films (and i won't even get into why dogs and kill bill aren't exactly cinematic masterpieces), there's no logical way you can be included in the same sentence as scorsese, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

eh it all comes down to personal opinion I guess. dogs, pulp and kill bill are all at the top of best movies in the last 10-15 years for me, but others might not regard them as highly.

This doesn't relate to direction, but on a side note IMO Kill Bill I & II is quite possibly the best original story for a movie in recent years.

Maybe I just like Tarantino too much?

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't relate to direction, but on a side note IMO Kill Bill I & II is quite possibly the best original story for a movie in recent years.

Maybe I just like Tarantino too much?

[/ QUOTE ]

*cough*Being John Malcovich*cough*

as a filmmaker who's seen quite a few of QT's influences, i'll just say this: Kill Bill 1, to me, felt as unoriginal as any movie i saw in 04. there were very few shots that i hadn't seen elsewhere, and the story was pretty nonexistent. It was as if he had made a mix CD, changed the song titles, and tried to pass it off as his new album. it was well done, but it wasn't anything i hadn't seen before and i was honestly pretty bored by the whole thing. i didn't see the second one b/c he didn't give me any reason in the first one to keep watching. had i not seen all the films he "referenced" it probably would have been a different story.

or maybe i just haven't drunk the tarrantino kool-aid /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

i can think of at least 4 "new" directors who have better track records than QT, and that's just off the top of my head. but i still wouldn't say they are the best directors of the last 30 years.

[Pocket Trips]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


no, but when that's the sum total of your films (and i won't even get into why dogs and kill bill aren't exactly cinematic masterpieces), there's no logical way you can be included in the same sentence as scorsese, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

eh it all comes down to personal opinion I guess. dogs, pulp and kill bill are all at the top of best movies in the last 10-15 years for me, but others might not regard them as highly.

This doesn't relate to direction, but on a side note IMO Kill Bill I & II is quite possibly the best original story for a movie in recent years.

Maybe I just like Tarantino too much?

[/ QUOTE ]

As good as Tarantino is I think Memento is the most original screenplay of the past few years

btw if you don't have this DVD get it... one of the best dvd's ever! I really like being able to watch the film in reverse chronological order( or um i guess you could say correct chron.. order) It mazkes it such a completely different film

[this guy]

[ QUOTE ]
as a filmmaker who's seen quite a few of QT's influences, i'll just say this: Kill Bill 1, to me, felt as unoriginal as any movie i saw in 04. there were very few shots that i hadn't seen elsewhere, and the story was pretty nonexistent. It was as if he had made a mix CD, changed the song titles, and tried to pass it off as his new album. it was well done, but it wasn't anything i hadn't seen before and i was honestly pretty bored by the whole thing. i didn't see the second one b/c he didn't give me any reason in the first one to keep watching. had i not seen all the films he "referenced" it probably would have been a different story.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, pretty much all of Tarantino's shots are copied from other movies, I heard that he even lists all the shots he copied and where he got them from in his press packets. But what makes him brilliant is the way he weaves and mixes those shots together in such an incredible way to put out that great final product. Sure, all of the shots may have been seen before somewhere else but that doesn't make his movie boring, at least not for me, because I've never seen those shots put together in the ways Tarantino did.

[B Dids]

Not listing Kubrick means you should set your face on fire.

Anybody suggesting QT or Speilburg should do the same.

[KDawgCometh]

Why wasn't Sidney Lumet not included on this list. His whole carerr has been nothing but great films starting with 12 Angry Men in '57

[mikeyvegas]

I voted Spielberg because that was the correct answer.

[banditbdl]

[ QUOTE ]
Kubrick

[/ QUOTE ]

According to IMDB all he has is:

Barry Lyndon
The Shining
Full Metal Jacket
Eyes Wide Shut

Lyndon I'm afraid I'm not familiar with, Shining and FMJ are both very good, and Eyes Wide Shut is at the least flawed.

This can't even hold a candle to what Spielberg has done during the time period. By my count Spielberg has at least 8 good-to-excellent films since 1975. With a few more at least entertaining ones and just a few clunkers mixed in.(plus one of the most glaring disasters was Kubrick's vision that Spielberg couldn't get to work)

There is definitely an argument (and maybe even a winning one) that Kubrick and/or some others might be better directors overall but given the poll criteria this is a landslide victory for Speilberg.

[IronDragon1]

[ QUOTE ]
Not listing Kubrick means you should set your face on fire.


[/ QUOTE ]

To you (and others like you) check the subject

[banditbdl]

[ QUOTE ]
and without a doubt Robert Altman

[/ QUOTE ]

I've only seen about 4 or 5 of his films, but I thought they were all dreck. Complete and utter dreck, I wasn't entertained or at all intellectually stimluted throughout a single one of them.

[IndieMatty]

Paul Thomas Anderson

[IronDragon1]

[ QUOTE ]
Paul Thomas Anderson

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I had a REAL tough time leaving him off this list

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul Thomas Anderson

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I had a REAL tough time leaving him off this list

[/ QUOTE ]

he has to have more great films under his belt IMO. The same goes for David O Russell, Kevin Smith, and Spike Jonze. What they have done in a small time is great, but for me to put them up there they need to be more prolific, or need to do at least three to four more quality films to be on the list. I feel the same goes for Tarantino. He has only directed 5(well really four) films. Once he reaches 10 and they have been hitting at around 8 out of the ten, then we can add him to the discussion

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
David Fincher strikes me as an omission, though probably not a glaring one. He directed Seven, Fight Club, The Game, and Panic Room. Obviously hasn't been around long, but the track record certainly ain't bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow are you retarded?

[YourFoxyGrandma]

[ QUOTE ]
Where is Kubrick?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do people read threads anymore? This is from more than halfway down...

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


And Tarantino has absolutely no business in this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the most influential movies of the '90s. We can talk about him.

[/ QUOTE ]

no more influential than "Slacker", in the end, and we aren't talking about Linklater.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. And this is very true -- "it's not even close."

[Luv2DriveTT]

Stanley Kubrick. Many of the others listed pale in comparison. Spielberg is an amazing director, and it was touching that he was chosen to finish what was supposed to be Stanley's masterpiece, AI, after he passed away but it wasn't nearly as good as Stanley would have made it.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
3) Tarantino belongs in this discussion. Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece, and Kill Bill contains some fantastic direction. Whether or not you like Kill Bill is your own opinion, but anyone who says its direction isn't great has no clue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Tarantino a lot, but didn't care for the first Kill Bill all that much. He shot the fight sequences in the most ordinary, dirt common, pedestrian way that imitative, untalented American action flick directors do these days -- in rapid show-offy cuts and close ups, like an MTV video, full of anonymous stunt double body parts flapping about once everyone had already made their dramatic entrances. Ugh. He should have framed and cut it more openly, like a Gene Kelly dance number, so you could see what people were doing and go WOW! instead of having it ground up into visual baby food and funneled already predigested down your throat. A major misstep straight into mediocrity that's typical of Americans doing pure action like dance and fighting -- the film looks edited rather than shot. Tarantino said he had never directed an action flick before and that he was learning as he went along, and it shows.

He's a hell of an artist, but he's vastly better as a dramatic director than an action director.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey I like Wes Anderson too, but if you are going to say Kubrick doesn't belong because he has only four films, then you can't include Wes Anderson either. (Or Tarantino, Fincher, and a lot of others with only a few good movies to their credit).

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of these directors were directing movies before the others were born. This poll is kind of mixed up because it's hard to compare directors who grew up and were productive in vastly different times, and different studio structures, too, while arbitrarily leaving some out. I mean, if you include Kubrick, who died a while back, you might as well include Hitchcock, who was around in the 30's, as was Kurosawa, who some have also included here. Yet we're at the same time bandying about names like Robert Rodriguez and Tarantino, and leaving out names like Altman and Coppola, Herzog and Wenders, Truffaut and Tarkovsky and Miyazaki and the Coen brothers.

The poll seems too unfocussed to me.

That said, I'm voting Scorcese, according to my perception of what the poll is really aiming at. He made easily some of the best films of the last quarter century and is undoubtedly the best living American director. As a pure craftsman and as a guy I'd trust with my retirement money, I'd say Spielberg, but as an artist or maker of movies worth watching as more than a Saturday afternoon goof-off and time-killer while your wife finishes shopping, I'd rather pick...well, my ass with a fork, really. Almost anybody.

[PokerFink]

Kill Bill's fight scenes are a homage to the way martial arts films were made in the 70's. The action scenes are shot that way on purpose.

From IMDB: "In order to achieve the specific look of Chinese "wuxia" (martial arts) film of the 1970s, Quentin Tarantino gave director of photography, Robert Richardson, an extensive list of genre films as a crash-course in the visual style they used. The list included films by genre-pioneers Cheh Chang and the Shaw Brothers. Tarantino also forbade the use of digital effects and "professional" gags and squibs. As such, he insisted that bloody spurts be done in the fashion made popular by Chang Cheh: Chinese condoms full of fake blood that would splatter on impact."

"The black and white photography is, in the end, an homage to '70's and '80s US television airings of kung fu movies. Black and white, and also black and red, were used to "hide" the shedding of blood from television censors. It was, however, originally, to be shown in color (and is in the Japanese cut of the film) but the MPAA demanded measures be taken to tone the scene down. Tarantino merely used the old trick for its intended purpose, rather than merely as an homage."

Some of the shots in the film are sensational. See the House of Blue Leaves scene.

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of these directors were directing movies before the others were born. This poll is kind of mixed up because it's hard to compare directors who grew up and were productive in vastly different times, and different studio structures, too, while arbitrarily leaving some out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point. In truth, if you don't count Kubrick and the other new-age directors with only a few films (such as QT) than you are basically narrowing down the poll to Scorsese and Spielberg.

[B Dids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not listing Kubrick means you should set your face on fire.


[/ QUOTE ]

To you (and others like you) check the subject

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're going to list some of the people you did, you can't not list Kubrick on the notion that his best work was pre 75.

If you're going for hip new directors, the answer is Linkletter.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Kill Bill's fight scenes are a homage to the way martial arts films were made in the 70's. The action scenes are shot that way on purpose.

From IMDB: "In order to achieve the specific look of Chinese "wuxia" (martial arts) film of the 1970s, Quentin Tarantino gave director of photography, Robert Richardson, an extensive list of genre films as a crash-course in the visual style they used. The list included films by genre-pioneers Cheh Chang and the Shaw Brothers. Tarantino also forbade the use of digital effects and "professional" gags and squibs. As such, he insisted that bloody spurts be done in the fashion made popular by Chang Cheh: Chinese condoms full of fake blood that would splatter on impact."

"The black and white photography is, in the end, an homage to '70's and '80s US television airings of kung fu movies. Black and white, and also black and red, were used to "hide" the shedding of blood from television censors. It was, however, originally, to be shown in color (and is in the Japanese cut of the film) but the MPAA demanded measures be taken to tone the scene down. Tarantino merely used the old trick for its intended purpose, rather than merely as an homage."

Some of the shots in the film are sensational. See the House of Blue Leaves scene.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with the cutting and framing. How much blood was used is controversial, but in the end trivial.

Having grown up in the 70's myself and gone weekly to kung fu flicks in Chinatown, as well as seen endless numbers of the old Shaw Brothers films on t.v., I'm well aware of the style of those films. That style is distinctly different from the MTV hyper-edited style that has become the norm in American dance and action sequences and didn't exist before then, unless you want to go back to Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin perhaps, where it was used, but quite differently. The hyperkinetic editing style in dance and action sequences is a style of today's American films and the limitations of both their actors and directors, not the Hong Kong films of the 70's.

There was some cutting, but it was very important to the viewers of these films that you could see the moves and that the people's skills looked authentic. They knew the styles and the differences between them, and one of the big draws was authentic movement and new styles, and how they interacted with older, better known styles. You can't showcase new styles with an editing style that looks like you've dropped film strips in a blender set to frappe. The film shoots were incredibly fast and punishingly cheap(zooms instead of tracking shots, for instance), and there was neither time nor expense spared for a wide variety of angles and multiple camera coverage. Similarly, a star whose real skill was hidden by the camera rather than exposed by it was worthless to experienced audiences and felt like a cheat, which is exactly what it was, and negated the whole point of going to a kung fu movie in the first place. This is the polar opposite of the present-day American tendency to hide the fact that your star can't dance or fight by using fast cuts, close framing, and shots that show only a body part which may well belong to a stunt man, rather than revealing an actor who actually knows how to do his stuff.

All in all, opposite styles. Quentin's a far better artist than any thousand of the directors of the old Shaw Brothers type movies, but his talents don't extend to all spheres. Action directing is very far from where his talents lie.

The bloodiness of the film is just another stylistic note, but it's has nothing to do with action directing per se.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]

Paul Thomas Anderson

[/ QUOTE ]

Very, very good answer.

Give it ten more years and I vote PTA, QT, or Aronofsky.

[Dominic]

Krystof Kieslowski

I dare anyone to watch The Decalogue, The Double Life of Veronique, and The Three Colors trilogy and not be moved and awed by how brilliant a filmmaker can be.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
Krystof Kieslowski

I dare anyone to watch The Decalogue, The Double Life of Veronique, and The Three Colors trilogy and not be moved and awed by how brilliant a filmmaker can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

you'd have a hard time convincing me anyone on this list is even in Kieslowski's league.

that he's not on the list is stunning.

hell, if QT ever makes anything 1/2 as good as the decalogue, people wouldn't be able to contain their awe.

[Blarg]

I've heard about the colors trilogy since it first came out, but never seen it. Probably because I could never remember how to spell the director's name well enough to do a search. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I'll copy and paste it into Netflix and see if I can get it in my queue.

[CallMeIshmael]

Kubrick is sort of in an odd spot here...

Clockwork and 2001 are before the time period, but he did direct several very solid movies (FMJ is amazing) after the time period.

Given that I cant vote, him, I go Allen.

Annie Hall/Manhattan are amazing. I feel people let his odd personal life interfere with their opinions of his movies.

[PokerFink]

Interesting point, but can you really blame QT for Uma's lack of fighting ability?

I'd much rather have a good actress who can't wield a sword than a master swordsman who can't act.

[Blarg]

I have to agree with you on that.

I do think that even with Uma's low level of skill, Quentin could have done quite a bit to make her fight scenes look better than the anonymous, disembodied MTV crap they looked like, though. A good example would be Chow Yun Fat's fighting in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. He's older than Uma and also not a martial artist, but they didn't have to cut his moves into a thousand tiny pieces and jumble them all together really quickly to make him and his scenes look good.