MovieMaker Magazine's 25 Most Influential Directors of All-Time (1 Viewer)

[Arman]

Just read it this morning - I did not see any discussion of this list which was published 2 months ago.(?)
[/size]

Let the HTF nitpicking begins .

Though I disagree with few of the rankings (and some unavoidable glaring omissions of Dreyer, Lean, Tarantino, Bresson, Ozu and co.) I thought it's a good, credible and a worth-reading list to be posted here.

 

[Steve Christou]

Totally agree with Hitch at no.1, but where's David Lean? Tarantino surely deserves a place on a list of influential directors for his first two films alone, replace Cassavetes with Tarantino, and D.W.Griffith with Lean and you've got it.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I'd put Cameron before Tarantino. But I wouldn't remove any of the names on it for him, so there it is. I wouldn't remove anybody for Tarantino either.

Lean, on the other hand, I'd remove (or bump) quite a few folks...

Take care,
Chuck

 

[MarcusUdeh]

Spielberg should be number two

 

[george kaplan]

A pretty good list considering that it's not going to please everyone. But as for me, I'd certainly change things around. There's only one slot that I think is exactly right - Hitchcock at #1.

Too Low:

Chaplin
Spielberg
Coppola
Hawks
Lang

Way Too low:

Wilder
Huston
Allen
Lubitsch

Too High:

Ford
Eisenstien
Fellini
Cassavetes
Truffault

Way Too High:

Griffith
Godard
Renoir
Bunuel

About Right:

Welles
Kubrick
Scorsese
Kurosawa
Bergman
Keaton

Missing:

Curtiz
Polanski
Brooks
Zemekis
Capra
Cukor
Leone
Sturges
Tati

 

[Robert Crawford]

George,
You might think John Ford is rated too high because of your dislike for some of his films, but his influence on filmmakers cannot be denied. There have been too many noted directors like Scorsese and Spielberg who have stated time and time again on how much that man's work influenced their own style. The same can be said about others you have rated too high. Personally, I'm not a big fan of Griffith, but I also recognized his influence on the film industry, thus I think his rank is about right. This listing isn't about like and dislike, but which directors were the most influential in their craft. We can argue to the cows go home about such rankings, but overall, I think this list is a pretty good one which is saying a lot coming from me because I usually have a negative opinion about such listings.







Crawdaddy

 

[Evan Case]

I liked the list on the whole, but it seemed rather typical that they had to "qualify" Spielberg's high ranking with an entire paragraph demeaning his post-1970s work.

No one else listed besides Griffith was slammed like Spielberg. I guess Jack is the work of an artist whos has "settled comfortably into the role of director-for-hire", but Saving Private Ryan or A.I. or Empire of the Sun or E.T. are "self-indulgent, lazy and sentimental."

It was as if they had to soothe certain anti-Spielberg cineastes... "Yeah, we put him at #10, but don't worry, we don't really think he's that good either!"

Maybe I'm just getting worked up over nothing, but it seems to be disturbingly popular trend in some cinema circles. Outright dislike of the guy or his films is OK by me, but don't give him credit and then tear him down so as not to seem too "common."

FWIW, my rank of directors would go:

Hitch
Kubrick
Spielberg
Kurosawa
Scorsese

with Lean, Chaplin, Keaton, Renoir, Fellini, Ford, Huston and Hawks all hanging around too.

Godard is the only one on the main list I don't really care for.

Evan

 

[Seth--L]

Stagecoach is pretty much the bible on how to make a narrative film. Even Welles, ranked at #1, watched it 40 some times when preparing to make Kane.

This list only contains narrative directors, neglecting hugely influential directors such as Stan Brakhage, Maya Deren, Frederick Wiseman and Robert Flaherty.

 

[george kaplan]

I didn't say he didn't deserve to be on the list, only that he was rated "too high". I consider #5 too high for Ford, just like I consider #2 too high for D.W. Griffith. And this is based on influence. Griffith gets talked about a lot, was influential for his time, etc., but more influential overall than Welles and many others? Not in my opinion.

 

[Steve Christou]

And if Griffith never existed someone else would have eventually "invented the narrative film as we know it", if Gagarin failed to go into space, Shepherd would have been the first man in space etc

 

[Seth--L]

And someone else would have figured out e=mc^2, so I guess Einstein isn't much of a genius...

The fact is, Griffith did it, and thus, his model was copied.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I like the reasoning behind Griffith, but I don't necessarily agree with his final placement. Great technique yes, but story hell no.

I'd put Kurosawa ahead of Scorsese and Spielberg. The biggest disappointment to me is the lack of David Lean on this list.

Otherwise, it's a nice list and given my limited knowledge it's hard for me to argue a lot of the other placements. I'd like to see Kubrick rank ahead of Godard, but I've only seen one Godard, Breathless, a very influential film which I admittedly don't care for much.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Where's that other Seth when ya need him?

 

[Steve Christou]

If all Griffith did was "invent the narrative film as we know it" than he is the odd one out on the list since that would have happened eventually. A distinctive style, form or genius in their field is what the others have in common.

 

[Seth--L]

At the time, what he was doing was quite "distinctive," such as his editing and structuring of the narrative, but since everyone after him just copied him, in hindsight his style has become diluted because of all the imitators.

EDIT: The list is titled "influential" directors, so a premium should be placed on directors who were first to do something, who then as a result, established style/methods which have subsequently been copied. You're missing the point if you say 'if Griffith didn't do it, then someone else would have.' People say the same thing about Andy Warhol and his tomato cans. As I've already said, you can say this about anyone famous person in any field. By being the first, Griffith placed HIS stylistic stamp on narrative filmmaking.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's quite amusing to see how directors from past eras like Griffith and Ford can be so easily dismissed by some people.





Crawdaddy

 

[Seth Paxton]

End Griffith rant

LOVE FORD that high. He was a well-noted influence on 2 of the other directors on this list, Scorsese and Kurosawa (among others I'm sure), so he has to be on there just for that fact. But his style and methods are also huge.

Lubitsch is too low. No Murnau, no Sturges.



Chaplin I can't totally agree with as a DIRECTOR. As an all-around producer and star, he was a major influence, but I don't think people looked to copy his directorial style as much.

Same with Woody Allen. He has a couple of well directed films, but much of his power comes from great writing and performances. Good director, great filmmaker.

Coppola? I definitely don't see him on this list. Great films, good direction, but I don't know about influential direction. As a producer and H'wood power broker he is far more influential.


Curtiz - yes, I do think he really needs to be on this list.

Lean as well. I can't imagine any director post-Lean not at some point wanting to emulate his shooting style, mise-en-scene, lighting and framing.

Tarintino is close. I know he is modern, but his influence on the types of films being made, how people are making them, how films look and feel, is extremely strong for the last decade.

 

[Seth--L]

You're missing the point. While his films were staged with a quasi narrative structure (National Geographic films pretty much operate the same way), he helped turn the documentary into a commercially viable product.

 

[Kevin Hewell]

The one glaring omission that no one else has mentioned yet is Robert Altman.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

The Neo Realists, Rossellini for example, and Murnau are the biggest omissions for me.