The Greatest American Director Working Today (1 Viewer)

[Jim_K]

I also admire Ridley Scott quite a bit but he's a Brit, not an American Director.

Stone I admire up to and including Heaven & Earth. Didn't care for his last 4 films (Any Given Sunday, U Turn, Nixon, Natural Born Killers)

I'm surprised the Coen's took so long to show up. Interesting & unique film-makers though very hit & miss with me.

 

[MarcusUdeh]

David Lynch, David Fincher, Spike Lee, Quentin Tarantino, Jonthan "BELOVED" Demme, and Steven Spielberg

 

[BrionL]

McG

Seriously I would have to go with Scorsese or Tarantino.

Brion

 

[Bill McA]

Without a doubt, David Lynch

 

[Steve Christou]

Greatest.Director.Ever. - Sir Alfred Hitchcock.


Greatest living American director - Steven Spielberg.


Greatest living British director - Ridley Scott.


Greatest living Kiwi director - Peter Jackson.

 

[Joe D]

Martin Scorsese

Mean Streets
Taxi Driver
Raging Bull
The King of Comedy
After Hours
The Last Temptation of Christ
Goodfellas
Cape Fear
Casino
Bringing out the Dead
Gangs of New York

You could say that I'm a fan.

 

[BrettB]

Cape Fear but no After Hours?

You're not a fan. :p)

 

[Kevin Grey]

Steven Spielberg. His mastery of the craft just boggles my mind. He gets extra points from me for turning out films on a fairly regular basis.

Scorcese would be a very close second but he hasn't really impressed me since Casino and, unlike Spielberg, I get the feeling that he's past his peak.

Third- Michael Mann. Ali was a misfire but Manhunter, Last of the Mohicans, and Heat are all among my favorite movies of all time. The Insider was fantastic too.

Guys that could be on this list in 10-20 years:

Paul Thomas Anderson and David Fincher. Any movie by either of these guys gets me in the seat even if its a home video of a barmitzvah. Neither has the body of work to be considered just yet. Anderson has the better record (hasn't had a misfire yet) but Se7en and Fight Club are enough to put Fincher up there and The Game and Panic Room and visually impeccable if shallow thrillers.

I'm not as enamored by Clint Eastwood as most although I do enjoy his films very much. I tend to prefer more showy, visual directors.

 

[Seth--L]

Spielberg may be a master storyteller, but his grasp of film as visual medium is no where near as sophisticated as someone like Scorcese. I just watched Casino on cable last night, I think it's a pretty boring formulaic mob movie, yet Scorcese does a brilliant job of telling a rather lame story visually. Even with the sound muted it's still a totally engrossing experience to watch.

I'd also list Stan Brakhage since he just recently died.

 

[Claire Panke]

Greatest? Martin Scorsese, hands down. Runner up, David Lynch.

Most underrated: John Sayles

Most Overrated: Steven Spielberg

 

[Nick C.]

Spielberg, PTA, QT, Sayles, and Fincher having already been mentioned, how bout the ever-talented Darren Aronofsky... (anyone hear any news on the Fountain?) and another brief but develping oeuvre belongs to Christopher Nolan

 

[Steve Christou]

Okaaay.. Kill Bill 1-2... great? Silly, enjoyable, fun... and a film too long.
Pulp Fiction is the closest QT came to making a 'great' film, IMO of course.

 

[Nick Sievers]

He is British.

I would have to agree with David Lynch, a true visionary and someone who never disappoints. A couple of other personal favorites of mine would be The Coen Brothers, Steven Soderbergh and David Cronenberg (yeah, yeah Canadian but close enough ). All unique in their own way and I always look forward to see what their next project is.

 

[george kaplan]

Give me a master storyteller anyday. Sophisticated use of the visual medium without being able to tell a great story is basically worthless. Now, I don't think Scorsese is unable to tell a great story (just look at Goodfellas), but in most cases it leaves something to be desired, IMO.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

I don't know that I would necessarily class Wes Anderson as "The Greatest American Director Working Today". He just hasn't made enough films yet. But give him time, get him a chance to get a few more films under his belt, and he would be a definite possibility. He certainly is one of modern filmmaking's most original voices, but one of the things I most love about Wes Anderson is his use of the canvas - quite astonishing.

But for now, I'll go with Spielberg, Coen and Scorcese - for the reasons that have been well explored in this thread.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

The "ouevre" is why Tarantino is about 5 films too far away from even being considered. Not only that, the films he's made all fall quite close to each other in terms of genre, with KB being the most unlike the others. Spielberg has probably got the most varied resume on the list. I love Aronofsky, but again, far too few films. By the by, for The Fountain news, I just know Hugh Jackman has replaced Brad Pitt, and it's moving.

I'd take Spielberg, but I wouldn't argue with some of the excellent choices here.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Jim_K]

I also really like Michael Mann aside from the mediocre Ali. Very underrated as it seems like being a visually stylistic Director of genre films is a sin to the elitists. Now if he made a French film about female/male relationships he'd be hailed as a Cinema God. Go figure.

PT Anderson & David Fincher are both interesting young Directors. Another young Director I really like is M. Night Shyamalan who's found his niche as the new master of suspense. Making [gasp] commercial/genre films has probably sealed his doom among the elitists though.


I'm lukewarm to Lynch, though I can see why some people love his films. For surreal films I prefer the mad jester that is Terry Gilliam.

 

[Haggai]

I see your point about not having made enough films yet to qualify, although I don't quite agree with it, but I definitely don't agree on the genre point. I think Hitchcock was the best director ever, and almost nobody would argue with listing him as among the best ever, even if they don't put him at #1. And yet, genre-wise, at a glance, he made the same sort of movie about five dozen times.

As always, this sort of debate is largely about which criteria you choose. If you pick versatility across different genres and sheer story-telling ability as the main criteria, how many people could argue with Howard Hawks as being the best director ever? I think he's way up there in any event, but for me, other considerations put Hitchcock at the top.

 

[Seth--L]

Spielberg's films are so boring visually (with the exception of the occasional spectacle), that he might as well be working in the theater. Scorcese has a far better idea what the camera is capable of doing.

 

[Haggai]

Spielberg has certainly had some mis-steps, but I don't think that should necessarily diminish one's stature as a director, if he's had a lot of sucesses. I'll cite Hitchcock again--as far as I'm concerned, he was the best director ever, although he made plenty of movies that I have no desire to see again (I've seen about 40-45 of his roughly 60 movies). It was the heights he reached that count for me.

And how many directors haven't had their share of mediocre efforts/outright flops? A few names that would be on almost anyone's list of all-time greats--Kurosawa, Fellini, Ford--all made some movies that just didn't work very well.