# Favorite Film Directors



## Morimur

I'd rank them but it's impossible...

Ingmar Bergman
Andrei Tarkovsky 
Béla Tarr
Aleksei German
Elem Klimov
Akira Kurosawa
Robert Bresson
Kenji Mizoguchi
Hiroshi Teshigahara
Aleksandr Sokurov


----------



## Avey

Those Andersons! Every single film.

*P.T. Anderson
Wes Anderson*

And others, with one film or the other...


----------



## Avey

...duplicate...


----------



## tdc

David Lynch 
Coen Brothers
Federico Fellini
Ingmar Bergman

I think that's it so far. Fellini and Bergman are there on the strength of the handful of films I've seen (not all of which I necessarily love, though they all seem to have some very redeemable qualities. That said Bergman had some strange obsessions I don't quite relate to, but a masterful film maker). Kurosawa seems excellent but I've only seen _Seven Samurai_. I really haven't viewed that many films in general. Polanski and Kubrick seem like good directors. I love Mike Judge's _Idiocracy_.


----------



## Fugue Meister

Morimur said:


> I'd rank them but it's impossible...
> 
> Ingmar Bergman
> Andrei Tarkovsky
> Béla Tarr
> Aleksei German
> Elem Klimov
> Akira Kurosawa
> Robert Bresson
> Kenji Mizoguchi
> Hiroshi Teshigahara
> Aleksandr Sokurov


Now I know why your always disparaging people watching anything American under "Wha was the last film you watched" thread.. Don't get me wrong you've got several masters listed but you can't find any merits with _any_ American film director? You know we had sort of a great deal to do with popularizing the form.

Whatever, I guess there will be plenty of people who will list only American film makers so fair enough.

Mine

1- Orson Wells
2- Jean Renoir
3- Alfred Hitchcock
4- Akira Kurosawa
5- Howard Hawks
6- Vittorio De Sica
7- John Huston
8- Billy Wilder
9- Ingmar Bergman
10- Stanley Kubrick
11- Andrei Tarkovsky
12- Federico Fellini
13- Max Ophuls
14- David Lean
15- Francis Ford Coppola
16- Jean Luc Godard
17- David Lynch
18- François Truffaut
19- David Cronenberg
20- Woody Allen

Not that I don't love many others, I could easily do a top 50 but these guys are the top 20 for sure.


----------



## DavidA

In no particular order I like the work of:
Orson Wells
Alfred Hitchcock
John Ford
Howard Hawks
David Lean
StevAnd othersen Spielberg
Billy Wilder
Fred Zimermann


----------



## Templeton

Wong Kar-wai
François Truffaut
Chaplin
Ernst Lubitsch
Hal Ashby
Spike Lee
Werner Herzog
Jean Vigo
Frank Capra
David Lean
Walt Disney
John Schlesinger
Fritz Lang

Not in order.


----------



## norman bates

I don't know, the names I can think at the moment (not in order):

Fritz Lang (Fury)
Billy Wilder (the apartment)
Alfred Hitchcock (Vertigo)
Sam Peckinpah (Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia)
John Hubley (Windy day)
Werner Herzog (Strozsek)
Roman Polanski (The tenant)
David Lynch (Lost Highway)
Orson Welles (Touch of evil )
Andrei Tarkovsky (Stalker)
Federico Fellini (Juliet of the spirits)
Maya Deren (Meshes of the afternoon)
Martin Scorsese (Taxi driver)
Stanley Kubrick (2001)
Vittorio DeSica (Umberto D.)
Ingmar Bergman (Winter light)
Robert Bresson (Journal d'un curé de campagne)
John Carpenter (The thing)
Michael Powell and Emerich Pressburger (Red shoes)
Louis Bunuel (Le fantôme de la liberté)
Robert Aldrich (Hush hush sweet Charlotte)
Carl Theodor Dreyer (La passion de Jeanne d'Arc)

I've decided to mention at least one title of their work that I've particularly enjoyed to make the thing a bit more interesting


----------



## hombre777

Charles Chaplin, Fritz Lang, 
Aki Kaurismäki, Kubrick, Billy Wilder, Tarantino, Tarkowsky
Howard Hawks , Alfred Hitchcock , Woody Allen, Igmar Bergman ,
Malick, JohnFord , Kurosawa , Kenji Mizoguchi , Ozu.


----------



## DeepR

Sergio Leone.
(15 char)


----------



## Blancrocher

My favorites are probably Jacques Tati, Yasujirō Ozu, and Charlie Chaplin.


----------



## bharbeke

Akira Kurosawa
Steven Spielberg
Brad Bird
Alfred Hitchcock
Robert Wise
Musker/Clements (did lots of great Disney animated pictures from The Little Mermaid to The Princess and the Frog)

Pixar is very collaborative, but people like Lasseter, Stanton, and Docter are repeat offenders for being involved in some amazing movies.


----------



## Bellinilover

Tom Hooper is one of my favorites: _The King's Speech_, _Daniel Deronda _(for television), and _ Les Miserables_.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Can't really run to five without serious head-scratching but Kurosawa and Eisenstein would definitely be among them.


----------



## joen_cph

15x - possibly:

Bergman
Kurosawa
Herzog
Kubrick
Welles
Woody Allen
Wojciech Jerzy Has
Leone
Hitchcock
Tarkovsky
Cantet (The Class)
Greenaway
Wachowski Brothers (for the story, less for the acting)
Peter Jackson
Balling (a very local name, mostly worked in a popular style)


----------



## hpowders

William Wyler, the director of:

Ben Hur

The Best Years of Our Lives

The Heiress


----------



## Wood

I like all the auteurs. In particular, Bergman, Bunuel, Bresson (see avatar) Fassbinder, Godard, Greenaway, Herzog, Kurosawa, Leigh, Loach, Malle, Ozu & Truffaut.


----------



## tdc

norman bates said:


> Ingmar Bergman (Winter light)


Of all Bergman's films I find it interesting you would choose this one, may I ask what it is that made you mention this film in particular?


----------



## norman bates

tdc said:


> Of all Bergman's films I find it interesting you would choose this one, may I ask what it is that made you mention this film in particular?


because I think it's one of the greatest movies ever made, and his work that moved me the most. I know that Pasolini had the same opinion, and that Bergman was particularly proud of it. 
In the discussion Boulez vs. Webern I said that I consider the music of Webern extremely austere, and it seems that many took it as a negative connotation, but I replied that I see it as a way to achieve... purity, if I can put it that way.
http://www.talkclassical.com/42285-boulez-vs-webern-3.html

I think it applies perfectly to Winter light. Probably many would consider it boring, but I love its essentiality that to me makes it so powerful. 
I don't know if you've seen it, but I've mentioned also Bresson and his Diary of a country priest that is very similar to Winter light (the same theme, the lack of god, the same austerity).


----------



## tdc

norman bates said:


> I think it applies perfectly to Winter light. Probably many would consider it boring, but I love its essentiality that to me makes it so powerful.


I didn't realize this was Bergman's favorite film among his works - you are right, though I don't necessarily agree with him. I did not find the work boring, but for large parts of it, not remarkable either. It was through some of the dialogue that happens between some of the characters later on in the film (Tomas and Marta in the schoolroom and later Tomas and Algot in the church) that really brought the work together for me. I would definitely consider it an excellent film, but it doesn't seem quite as inspired to me as _The Seventh Seal_ or _Persona_. There are aspects of _The Silence_ that seem much more impressive.

I think the reason why I think this is that _Winter Light_ is slightly less visually impressive than much of his other work. Its strengths lie more in the characters and the dialogue.


----------



## OldFashionedGirl

Bergman
Dreyer
Ozu
Tarkovsky
Eisenstein


----------



## Weston

Kubrick at the top for me.

Then maybe Robert Wise, Hitchcock, Jean Cocteau -- and a couple of guilty pleasures, Mario Bava and Ridley Scott.


----------



## Wood

One more vote for Winter Light and Diary of a Country Priest. Both are remarkable films.


----------



## Aleksandar

Stanley Kubrick
Martin Scorsese
Quentin Tarantino
Alfred Hitchcock
Sergio Leone


----------



## Blancrocher

tdc said:


> I think the reason why I think this is that _Winter Light_ is slightly less visually impressive than much of his other work. Its strengths lie more in the characters and the dialogue.


With regard to the cinematography of Winter Light, the following comments are interesting:



> The film represented a major stylistic breakthrough for both Bergman and his director of photography, Sven Nykvist, thanks to its abandonment of conventional studio lighting techniques. To create the visual style they wanted, they visited a number of churches to study how light changed throughout the day. In the Sjöman documentary Nykvist explained, "Every ten minutes I would take a snapshot to see how the light was changing, and these proved very useful. I glued them into the script, and I'd look at them from time to time while filming." He added, "This time we tried to achieve a totally shadowless image, and that proved to be much more difficult than using conventional filming techniques. We didn't achieve it just with lights. We had to build special reflectors and large screens and work with waxed paper sheets and indirect lighting. And it was very difficult to light churches with indirect lighting." Even so, they ultimately decided that the interior of the church at Skattungbyn was not suitable because the light was, paradoxically, too visually striking for what they wanted. Instead the film's production designer, P. A. Lundgren, built a replica of the church interior, including the full ceiling, in the Råsunda film studios. Besides adding to the sense of realism, the low ceiling on the set helped them avoid the temptation to resort to conventional studio lighting. In a similar vein, the crew filmed outdoors "only when it was overcast or foggy," as Bergman later noted. "Not one shot was taken in direct sunlight."


http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article.html?isPreview=&id=659366|659839&name=Winter-Light

Obviously, the deliberate avoidance of interiors that are "too visually striking" would help explain why reasonable people could think the cinematography isn't that striking!

I'd be interested in following a good guide--such as a Criterion commentary or something--that could fill me in on details I missed the last time I watched it.

Fwiw, my own favorites from Bergman are the miniseries versions of "Fanny and Alexander" and "Scenes from a Marriage."


----------



## tdc

Blancrocher said:


> Obviously, the deliberate avoidance of interiors that are "too visually striking" would help explain why reasonable people could think the cinematography isn't that striking!


Very interesting info, thanks. I think the scenes in the church turned out fine but to me the most powerful scene visually is outside when Tomas is waiting with the body.


----------



## Xaltotun

Let's do a 20. The first ten are set in stone, then it becomes more wobbly.

1. Bresson
2. Eisenstein
3. Renoir
4. Dreyer
5. Visconti
6. Hawks
7. Ford
8. Tarkovsky
9. Rossellini
10. Murnau
11. Lang
12. Mankiewicz
13. Huston
14. Sirk
15. Pasolini (but I only like _Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo_ (I like it a LOT))
16. Bunuel
17. Godard (but I only like _Le Mépris_ (I like it a LOT))
18. Bergman
19. Sjöström
20. Capra

and honourable mentions for a hundred more!


----------



## Guest

It's easy to come up with a list of films that I like and name the director responsible. It's less easy to name a director whose work I like when movie-making is such a collaborative effort and I might be making a false attribution.

For example, one of my favourite movies is _The Maltese Falcon_ (Huston, 1941). How much of what I see and hear onscreen is identifiably Huston's? How much belongs to the writer of the original story and how much to the screenwriter? Is it the ensemble playing; the story itself; the cinematography; the editing...?

If I then look at the list of movies he's made, (_The African Queen, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre,...Annie (!?))_ I might find that what they have in common is not a particular style, but simply a particular kind of story that he prefers which also matches my preference. In other words, what I like is less what actually appears on screen, more the choice of material.

Consequently, I'm less likely to choose directors whose work focuses on the minutiae of, say, marriage breakdown, or who enjoy the use of violence which is simultaneously comedic, ironic yet brutal - no matter how good the movie might be regarded by the critics.

What no-one has yet offered is an insight into what it is about the directors' work that they find attractive - though some have indeed said what they like about an individual movie.

So, to answer the OP, there are a number of directors whose choice of material, and its treatment, and their reliance on a number of key contributors have given me a rewarding time at the movies:

Kubrick
Spielberg
Huston
Coen Bros
Ridley Scott
Wes Anderson
Hitchcock
Capra
Lean
Launder and Gilliat
Powell and Pressburger
Wilder

For each of those I've chosen, I can recall at least three films which I've really enjoyed, which would seem to be the bare minimum to justify the tag 'favourite'.

For many of the directors mentioned by other posters, I can think of one or two that I've enjoyed, but would not go so far as to say that I like their work more broadly..

Welles, Allen, Kurosawa, Leone, Lang...it's quite a long list!

[add]

In fact, I've seen so many films I've enjoyed whose directors I can't even recall (Oh Mr Porter!), or directors who would not dare be mentioned in the same breath as the alleged greats (eg J Lee Thompson), yet who've entertained me more than the holy, that I'm beginning to wonder if it's in any way relevant!


----------



## Morimur

MacLeod said:


> It's easy to come up with a list of films that I like and name the director responsible. It's less easy to name a director whose work I like when movie-making is such a collaborative effort and I might be making a false attribution.
> 
> For example, one of my favourite movies is _The Maltese Falcon_ (Huston, 1941). How much of what I see and hear onscreen is identifiably Huston's? How much belongs to the writer of the original story and how much to the screenwriter? Is it the ensemble playing; the story itself; the cinematography; the editing...?
> 
> If I then look at the list of movies he's made, (_The African Queen, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre,...Annie (!?))_ I might find that what they have in common is not a particular style, but simply a particular kind of story that he prefers which also matches my preference. In other words, what I like is less what actually appears on screen, more the choice of material.
> 
> Consequently, I'm less likely to choose directors whose work focuses on the minutiae of, say, marriage breakdown, or who enjoy the use of violence which is simultaneously comedic, ironic yet brutal - no matter how good the movie might be regarded by the critics.
> 
> What no-one has yet offered is an insight into what it is about the directors' work that they find attractive - though some have indeed said what they like about an individual movie.
> 
> So, to answer the OP, there are a number of directors whose choice of material, and its treatment, and their reliance on a number of key contributors have given me a rewarding time at the movies:
> 
> Kubrick
> Spielberg
> Huston
> Coen Bros
> Ridley Scott
> Wes Anderson
> Hitchcock
> Capra
> Lean
> Launder and Gilliat
> Powell and Pressburger
> Wilder
> 
> For each of those I've chosen, I can recall at least three films which I've really enjoyed, which would seem to be the bare minimum to justify the tag 'favourite'.
> 
> For many of the directors mentioned by other posters, I can think of one or two that I've enjoyed, but would not go so far as to say that I like their work more broadly..
> 
> Welles, Allen, Kurosawa, Leone, Lang...it's quite a long list!
> 
> [add]
> 
> In fact, I've seen so many films I've enjoyed whose directors I can't even recall (Oh Mr Porter!), or directors who would not dare be mentioned in the same breath as the alleged greats (eg J Lee Thompson), yet who've entertained me more than the holy, that I'm beginning to wonder if it's in any way relevant!


Ridley Scott!? You must be joking. Both he and his brother are T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E.


----------



## Guest

Morimur said:


> Ridley Scott!? You must be joking. Both he and his brother are T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E.


Why would I be joking about directors whose work I enjoy? You didn't ask for opinion on the _quality_ of their work, simply to name our favourites. As I've only seen three of the movies of your favourites, which I didn't particularly enjoy, I'll not pass comment on their quality

As for Tony, I like some of his movies too!


----------



## Pugg

Ang Lee and James Cameron both made classics :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

Pugg said:


> Ang Lee and James Cameron both made classics :tiphat:


Nice ambiguity here...I assume you mean _Hulk _and _Piranha Part Two_?


----------



## Fugue Meister

Morimur said:


> Ridley Scott!? You must be joking. Both he and his brother are T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E.


Come on man get over yourself, this isn't 1890 anymore. I'll admit I'm not the biggest fan of Tony but Ridley is considered by many to be one of the greats and although I've never been his biggest fan I do have enormous respect for him. If you want to know some awful film makers let me help point them out: Brett Ratner, Uwe Boll, Michael Bay, M. Night Shyamalan, and the worst film maker living Joel Schumacher... Those are terrible film makers, anyone whose made at least 2 or 3 excellent films (not to mention how highly influential his films are regardless of how you feel) cannot be called terrible.


----------



## Wood

Morimur said:


> Ridley Scott!? You must be joking. Both he and his brother are T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E.


Mostly dire, though 'A good year' isn't too bad. If this is turning into a hate thread I will offer the following;

Ken Annakin
Darren Aranofsky
Jaques Audiard
Paul Meyarda Berges
Kathryn Bigelow
Sergei Bodrov
Gurinder Chadha
Yu-Hsiu Camille Chen
Audrey Cooke
Christian Duguay
Habib Faisal
Marc Forster
Javier Fuentes-Leon
Lucio Fulci
Mel Gibson
Michel Gondry
Mark Hartley
James Hawes
Howard Hawks
Gavin Hood
Luc Jacquet
Karan Johar
Asif Kapadia
Jan Kounen
George Lucas
Baz Luhrmann
Tareque Masud
Nanni Moretti
Hayao Miyazaki
Francois Ozon
Aparna Sen
Mel Smith
Charles Sturridge
Laurent Tirard
Peter Webber
Robert Wise

:tiphat:


----------



## Wood

Fugue Meister said:


> Come on man get over yourself, this isn't 1890 anymore. I'll admit I'm not the biggest fan of Tony but Ridley is considered by many to be one of the greats and although I've never been his biggest fan I do have enormous respect for him. If you want to know some awful film makers let me help point them out: Brett Ratner, Uwe Boll, Michael Bay, M. Night Shyamalan, and the worst film maker living Joel Schumacher... Those are terrible film makers,* anyone whose made at least 2 or 3 excellent films (not to mention how highly influential his films are regardless of how you feel) cannot be called terrible*.


Any true Scotsman would agree with you.


----------



## Blancrocher

Anyone seen Ridley Scott's "The Duelists"? His first film, which won the "best debut film" award at Cannes. I might give it a shot--I'll bet Harvey Keitel is good in it.


----------



## Morimur

MacLeod said:


> Nice ambiguity here...I assume you mean _Hulk _and _Piranha Part Two_?


Ang Lee's Hulk was actually a very good film. Quite thoughtful and poetic for a comic book movie - and that's precisely why it didn't make any money.


----------



## norman bates

I don't care for a lot of the stuff Scott did in his career (actually I haven't seen a lot of his works), but Blade runner and Alien are two of the best sci-fi movies ever made. Alien in particular is one of my favorite movies ever.


----------



## Cosmos

Not adding anything new here, my favorite directors:

Stanley Kubrick
the Coen Brothers
Lars von Trier
Tom Hooper
Darren Aronofsky
David Lynch
Guillermo del Torro [though I'll admit the atmosphere of his movies is more interesting than the actual plot of the movies as time goes on. Pans Labyrinth is still top quality stuff]

Guilty Pleasure directors:
Christopher Nolan 
Quentin Tarantino


----------



## Xaltotun

Wood said:


> Howard Hawks


Sad sad sad sad to see Howard Hawks on your hate list! He's my favourite American director. Have you seen many of his films? They cover several genres, although they all have his trademark touch.


----------



## Morimur

Most directors, even the capable ones, are mere aesthetes. The really talented ones are either dead or slaving away in near obscurity.

I urge you to investigate the works of Béla Tarr, Elem Klimov, and Aleksei German.


----------



## Wood

Xaltotun said:


> Sad sad sad sad to see Howard Hawks on your hate list! He's my favourite American director. Have you seen many of his films? They cover several genres, although they all have his trademark touch.


No, I haven't seen many. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is the first that comes to mind.

What would you recommend?

I'd be happy to reduce my hate list. I didn't realise it was so long.


----------



## Badinerie

David Lean (The Master!)
Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger 

Anyone else who ever made a good movie just got lucky!


----------



## Xaltotun

Wood said:


> No, I haven't seen many. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is the first that comes to mind.
> 
> What would you recommend?
> 
> I'd be happy to reduce my hate list. I didn't realise it was so long.


I'll be extremely happy to recommend you _Red River_ (an epic western), _Bringing Up Baby_ (a crazy screwball comedy), _Only Angels Have Wings_ (perhaps his most existential, most "Hawksian" film), _To Have and Have Not_ (a "Hawksified" _Casablanca)_, and _The Big Sleep_ (a superb film noir where style and attitude triumph over plot), not forgetting _Rio Bravo_ (an almost minimalist, essentialist, genious western).

Other very good ones include _His Girl Friday_ (comedy), _Monkey Business_ (comedy), _Scarface_ (gangster film) and _I Was A Male War Bride_ (comedy).


----------



## Fugue Meister

Wood said:


> No, I haven't seen many. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is the first that comes to mind.
> 
> What would you recommend?
> 
> I'd be happy to reduce my hate list. I didn't realise it was so long.


I absolutely agree with Xaltotun, Hawks is a true American master... Check out the original "Scarface" ('32 with Paul Muni), "Bringing up Baby", "Only Angels have Wings", "His Girl Friday", "The Big Sleep", "Rio Bravo", or "Red River"

He was so eclectic and could do any genre seamlessly. Oh and for the record I pretty much agree with the rest of your list with the obvious exception of Hawks. :tiphat:


----------



## Fugue Meister

Xaltotun said:


> I'll be extremely happy to recommend you _Red River_ (an epic western), _Bringing Up Baby_ (a crazy screwball comedy), _Only Angels Have Wings_ (perhaps his most existential, most "Hawksian" film), _To Have and Have Not_ (a "Hawksified" _Casablanca)_, and _The Big Sleep_ (a superb film noir where style and attitude triumph over plot), not forgetting _Rio Bravo_ (an almost minimalist, essentialist, genious western).
> 
> Other very good ones include _His Girl Friday_ (comedy), _Monkey Business_ (comedy), _Scarface_ (gangster film) and _I Was A Male War Bride_ (comedy).


Man, you beat me to it...


----------



## Fugue Meister

Badinerie said:


> David Lean (The Master!)
> Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger
> 
> Anyone else who ever made a good movie just got lucky!


Yeah I'll go along with this... If we're talking British directors only, although I would add Carol Reed perhaps.


----------



## Badinerie

Ok.. ill chuck in some American Directors

Daryl F Zanuck
Howard Hawks
Busby Berkeley


----------



## Fugue Meister

Badinerie said:


> Ok.. ill chuck in some American Directors
> 
> Daryl F Zanuck
> Howard Hawks
> Busby Berkeley


Uh, Mr. Zanuck was a producer and to my knowledge never directed a film... But hey you got Hawks on there.. What about Wells, or Huston or maybe Kubrick?


----------



## Wood

Xaltotun said:


> I'll be extremely happy to recommend you _Red River_ (an epic western), _Bringing Up Baby_ (a crazy screwball comedy), _Only Angels Have Wings_ (perhaps his most existential, most "Hawksian" film), _To Have and Have Not_ (a "Hawksified" _Casablanca)_, and _The Big Sleep_ (a superb film noir where style and attitude triumph over plot), not forgetting _Rio Bravo_ (an almost minimalist, essentialist, genious western).
> 
> Other very good ones include _His Girl Friday_ (comedy), _Monkey Business_ (comedy), _Scarface_ (gangster film) and _I Was A Male War Bride_ (comedy).


Thanks Xaltotun, I've added those to my list of films to get.


----------



## Blancrocher

Samuel Fuller would be on my short list of American directors--total wild man. Easy to see what the French New-Wave directors saw in him, too.


----------



## tdc

MacLeod said:


> Consequently, I'm less likely to choose directors... who enjoy the use of violence which is simultaneously comedic, ironic yet brutal - no matter how good the movie might be regarded by the critics.


Me too, but it depends on the presentation. To me David Lynch's use of such scenes highlights the absurd, or contrasts extreme dark and light, to take a look at "the whole", including the shadow self - even if it is uncomfortable. Tarantino on the other hand seems to attempt to make violence look 'cool', glamorous and fashionable, seemingly to encourage psychopathy. To me there is a big difference between these two examples.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> Me too, but it depends on the presentation. To me David Lynch's use of such scenes highlights the absurd, or contrasts extreme dark and light, to take a look at "the whole", including the shadow self - even if it is uncomfortable. Tarantino on the other hand seems to attempt to make violence look 'cool', glamorous and fashionable, seemingly to encourage psychopathy. To me there is a big difference between these two examples.


Eaxctly so - which is why I can stomach the violence of Lynch and Coen Bros and not Tarantino.

Despite Morimur's insistence on turning his own OP "Who's you favourite?" to "Who's the best", he doesn't own the direction of the thread. I can safely say that in the same way my _favourite _composers say something about the company I want to keep, so do my favourite directors. I don't want to keep the company of people whose 'voice' and 'presence' does not chime with my outlook on life. Consequently, my rejection (or ignorance) of some of the directors on others' lists has nothing whatsoever to do with quality, or an attempt to promote those I embrace as the _best _who've ever lived.

Last night I watched _Beauty and the Beast_ (Trousdale/Wise) and it was an utter joy. I'm not going to make any claim that these two guys were 'great' directors, but they hit the spot with this one, and are, of course, continuing a tradition of the Disney 'factory' which sometimes turns out duds, but sometimes great entertainment. A bit like James Cameron really!


----------



## Badinerie

Fugue Meister said:


> Uh, Mr. Zanuck was a producer and to my knowledge never directed a film... But hey you got Hawks on there.. What about Wells, or Huston or maybe Kubrick?


Hawks possibly the best US Director according to my own taste in cinema. 
John Huston certainly made some wonderful movies as did John Ford. I feel Kubrics output was a bit hitty missy. Some great movies and some stinkers!

I Put Zanuck down because he was the producer of a lot of excellent movies.


----------



## Figleaf

Wood said:


> Thanks Xaltotun, I've added those to my list of films to get.


I love Rio Bravo- it's my second favourite western after Flaming Star- but you should be warned that Dean Martin not only appears in a leading role but also sings. 

What have you got against Gentlemen Prefer Blondes anyway? I think it's one of Marilyn's best.


----------



## Bellinilover

Badinerie said:


> Ok.. ill chuck in some American Directors
> 
> *Daryl F Zanuck*
> Howard Hawks
> Busby Berkeley


Zanuck's _Gentleman's Agreement_ is one of my favorite movies. Admittedly, some of it is a bit stilted, but for me it's quite profound and very much a "feel good" movie in that good triumphs at the end.

I was glad to see David Lean in this thread, too, because his _Oliver Twist_ and _Great Expectations_ are two more favorites of mine. (Yes, I'm only in my thirties and yet I know about these old films.)


----------



## Wood

Figleaf said:


> I love Rio Bravo- it's my second favourite western after Flaming Star- but you should be warned that Dean Martin not only appears in a leading role but also sings.
> 
> What have you got against Gentlemen Prefer Blondes anyway? I think it's one of Marilyn's best.


Oh dear. It seemed rather trivial. I don't recall seeing any of her other films.

As for the Dean Martin musical western,


----------



## Figleaf

Wood said:


> Oh dear. It seemed rather trivial. I don't recall seeing any of her other films.
> 
> *As for the Dean Martin musical western,*


We're all hanging on the rest of that sentence, hun.... 

I like Niagara and The Misfits the best of Marilyn's films. You might like them too: no singing and plenty of action and suspense.Even the kids liked Niagara.


----------



## PJaye

The 1970s is my favorite era for American film. The everyday realism and spontaneity that certain directors brought out in their work was amazing to watch and still is. 

Some of my favorites - 
John Cassavetes
Robert Altman
Hal Ashby
Mike Nichols
Sidney Lumet


----------



## Badinerie

wrong post! sorry...


----------



## Atrahasis

You need to separate two terms: director and script writer!
Keep that in mind.

*Ridley Scott* - _for exampele mr. Scott is a great director but he always had a problems with writers! He himself said that he is not a good writer.
_
Stanley Kubrick
Clint Eastwood
David Lean
David Lynch
Martin Scorsese
Akira Kurosawa
Christopher Nolan
Roman Polanski
Ingmar Bergman
Peter Jackson
Andrei Tarkovsky
Alejandro G. Iñárritu
Guillermo del Toro
Mel Gibson
Luis Buñuel
Peter Weir
James Cameron
Fritz Lang	
Steve McQueen
....

All of them (and some others) shaped the look of cinema!


----------



## Vaneyes

Lean, Fellini, Kubrick.


----------



## Blancrocher

Favorite active directors: Pedro Almodóvar, Lars von Trier, Leos Carax, and Andrey Zvyagintsev.


----------



## Atrahasis

Pedro Almodóvar is genius... Master director, although I m not devoted fan of all of his movies.

Andrey Zvyagintsev - ... Great future in front of him.


----------



## lehnert

Top 5:
Michael Haneke
Stanley Kubrick
David Lynch
The Coen Brothers
Wojciech Smarzowski (not known outside of Poland but he's very good)

Not quite on the same level but I still like them very much:
Lars von Trier (very uneven - some of his films are masterpieces but some are terrible)
Woody Allen
Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather 1 & 2, Apocalypse Now, The Conversation - 4 masterpieces and the rest of his filmography is rather unremarkable)
Wes Anderson (original style but all of his films are almost the same)
Quentin Tarantino


----------



## Xenakiboy

Atrahasis said:


> You need to separate two terms: director and script writer!
> Keep that in mind.
> 
> *Ridley Scott* - _for exampele mr. Scott is a great director but he always had a problems with writers! He himself said that he is not a good writer.
> _
> Stanley Kubrick
> Clint Eastwood
> David Lean
> David Lynch
> Martin Scorsese
> Akira Kurosawa
> Christopher Nolan
> Roman Polanski
> Ingmar Bergman
> Peter Jackson
> Andrei Tarkovsky
> Alejandro G. Iñárritu
> Guillermo del Toro
> Mel Gibson
> Luis Buñuel
> Peter Weir
> James Cameron
> Fritz Lang
> Steve McQueen
> ....
> 
> All of them (and some others) shaped the look of cinema!


You're a clever kind of poster aren't you man! 
You cover almost everything in detail in the OP haha
Just add Terry Gillham and Alejandro Jodorowsky and then it may be a complete list!! :tiphat:


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

Hitchcock 
Mel Brooks 
Spielberg


----------



## schigolch

My favorites:

Alfred Hitchcock 
Andrei Tarkovski 
Billy Wilder 
Carl Theodor Dreyer 
Charles Chaplin 
Charles Laughton 
Ernst Lubitsch 
François Truffaut 
Friedrich W. Murnau 
Fritz Lang 
Jacques Becker 
Jean Renoir 
John Ford 
Max Ophüls 
Preston Sturges 
Robert Bresson 
Roberto Rossellini 
Stanley Kubrick 
William Dieterle 
Yasujiro Ozu


----------



## Xaltotun

There was the talk about Hawks, and another talk about the presentation of violence; they deserve to be combined! How does Hawks portray violence? In a very original way. It's sudden, unpredictable, lethal, final. BAM you're dead. It doesn't go all the way to the absurdly comic, though. Instead, it's very existential, leaves you feeling shocked and empty, but relating the death to life and action, since you cannot focus on the visceral, as he usually leaves so much of the violence outside the frame. "He was doing this and this, and now... he's dead?" It totally fits to the rest of his philosophy: death is always around the corner, so concentrate on living well, which means A) forming personal relationships and B) doing your job, doing the right thing.

For non-lethal violence, he's similar, although it's more comedic. Someone sees a moment to do the right thing, BAM a single fist to the face, no more, and you know the receiving end deserved it, and the giving end could have given more, but chose not to, as a point was proven and self-respect retained. Then, perhaps, a weighty but humorous line.


----------



## helenora

To my surprise only once in this thread Greenaway and Kronenberg were mentioned. 
Bravo Peter Greenaway for showing Cinema to the public and not just stories accompanied by visual effects of all kind.


----------



## znapschatz

Only to make sure he rates a mention: Juzo Itami, who directed *Tampopo*, *A Taxing Woman*, *The Funeral* and a number of others that I haven't yet seen. On the basis of those I have, however, I think this director is major.


----------



## HarrietPowell

Hitchcock, Billy Wilder, Michael Haneke.


----------



## Vronsky

My favourite are Stanley Kubrick & Orson Welles, after them:
Akira Kurosawa
Ingmar Bergman
Werner Herzog
Andrei Tarkovsky
Vittorio De Sica
Jean-Luc Godard
Roman Polanski
and the list goes on...


----------



## bz3

To limit it to a top 5, in no order:

John Huston
Howard Hawks
David Lean
John Carpenter
Clint Eastwood

Beyond them, here are a bunch more I really like as well: Cukor, Wilder, Hitchcock, Wyler, DeMille, Sirk, Kubrick, Lynch, Cronenberg, R. Scott, Sturges, Chaplin, Gibson, Polanski, Altman, A. Mann, Boetticher, Herzog, Fellini, Gilliam, J. Hughes, Lang, Ford, and Welles.

Not too much out of the ordinary for someone primarily familiar with American and British directors, and only a handful of the very famous continental European ones. A few I detest: Scoresese, Tarantino, PT Anderson, Stone, Nolan, Zemeckis, Reiner, Fuller, 

I tend to prefer a leaner style of direction that was more in vogue before the 70s - directors today are too stylized and kitschy for me a lot of the time. And frankly their movies just aren't all that good from a story standpoint (I am speaking primarily of Hollywood of course). The last Best Picture/Director Academy winner I thought was better than mediocre was 2007's No Country for Old Men and it wasn't all that great. Thank goodness for TCM, though I rarely watch more than one or two movies per week and no TV shows anymore.


----------

