Top Living American Filmmakers

[w/o horse]

Yeah you forgot Hal Hartley.  You don't have Arthur Penn, Sidney Lumet, or Blake Edwards on the list for fuck's sake.  Or Paul Schrader or Todd Solondz or Tobe Hooper or Jack Hill or John Landis or Walter Hill or Kenneth Anger, etc, I mean is this list going to Congress or what?

[New Feeling]

Yes it's going to the Congress of Jeff and we thank you for your support.  I had Sidney Lumet though, who you missed at 34.  That was exactly what I was looking for.  If you can get me to 100 I'll kiss you. 

I also noticed I left off John Waters.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

One superb filmmaker that's been overlooked thus far: Frederick Wiseman.

[Gold Trumpet]

One superb filmmaker that's been overlooked thus far: Frederick Wiseman.

I looked him up and he is intriguing. Got any personal comments to introduce him?

[squints]

Someone was just telling me about High School last night.

[Reinhold]

someone mentioned HAL HARTLEY to me yesterday and he seemed like a good candidate for this list.  I've only seen one of his films and barely remember it.  Anyone have anything to say about this guy, or care to rank him between two other filmmakers?  Where is the best place to start?  I heard his first two were the best. 

he's a Purchase College alum (and he also taught for a few years here in the 90's), so people tend to suck him off around here. in my opinion, he's the most godfuckingawful director i've ever encountered. we're talking Ed Wood, but with more dutch angles.  the first time i saw the trailer for fay grim, i found it so visually offensive that i didn't even hear the words.  maybe it's just me, but fuck hal hartley.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

One superb filmmaker that's been overlooked thus far: Frederick Wiseman.

I looked him up and he is intriguing. Got any personal comments to introduce him?

He makes the most objective documentaries I've ever seen.  He's really quite fascinating because he doesn't use any conventional documentary gimmicks like a main character, narrator, over-arching story.  He just films public institutions and/or public programs, and edits it to give you a flat, yet very sharpened look at it.  Some of his earlier features have a sense of irony in the shots, and have more artistic liscence, which he later claims he is less proud of than his more rectent movies that are more straightforward and unfiltered.

I highly recommend you see Tititcut Follies and High School to get a real feel for his early stuff (which I like better).  If you get into it, check out Missile, which is so darkly and unintentionally funny, but that was probably the point.  It's about military students learning how to launch missiles, what the buttons and codes are, etc.  But where it gets comical is that they're human beings who are just trying to soak it in, but you see things like students nodding off during class and the teachers speaking so frankly about learning how to use weapons that when used correctly, can be responsible for great loss of life and if used improperly, can cost your own among everyong else withing a large radius.

If you make it through those, move to check out Welfare and Public Housing, which would both be hard to start with since they're both about 3 hours each, and since Wiseman never uses any music unless it's found sound, they become quite staggering to see people arguing with social workers.

[pete]

he, like the maysles brothers, was a part of the direct cinema movement, in which documentaries are stylized as having no style, if that makes any sense.  it's a dated genre and a dated aesthetic, though now many comedies are beginning to use the style for punchlines.
the pay phone scene from Rushmore was lifted from Wiseman's "High School."  Herzog and him have butted heads several times, as they have completely different views on how truth should be captured.  Herzog has repeatedly called direct cinema "truth accountants" and claim that superficial facts cannot lead the viewers to the realm of the "ecstatic truth."  However, those are beautifully made movies.  Beautiful cinematography, editing, and characterization.  Salesman by the Maysles is one of my favorites of all time.

[SoNowThen]

Dunno if the Maysles qualify for the list cos they are half dead. And Al is losing it. I had a buddy that interned with him a few years ago, and the dude refuses to shoot anything but digital. He's all hardcore about his tapes "only costing $8" or some such thing. I love 'em, and agree that Salesman is a masterpiece, but still... Dave is dead. They don't qualify, imo.

Schrader should of course be on any list of great American directors, even if half of his output is complete shit.

I would also nominate Bob Rafelson and Mike Nichols each for their first four movies. Then they, again, have sucked enormous dick since then, but it doesn't matter, since the legacy was set in stone from the outset.

[New Feeling]

EW made a list of the top active filmmakers that is not so good

1. Steven Spielberg
2. Peter Jackson
3. Martin Scorsese
4. Christopher Nolan
5. Steven Soderbergh
6. Ridley Scott
7. Quentin Tarantino
8. Michael Mann
9. James Cameron
10. Joel and Ethan Coen
11. Guillermo del Toro
12. David Fincher
13. Tim Burton
14. Judd Apatow
15. Sam Raimi
16. Zack Snyder
17. Darren Aronofsky
18. Danny Boyle
19. Clint Eastwood
20. Ron Howard
21. Ang Lee
22. Paul Thomas Anderson
23. Paul Greengrass
24. Pedro Almodóvar
25. Jon Favreau
26. Woody Allen
27. Brad Bird
28. David Cronenberg
29. Sofia Coppola
30. Bryan Singer
31. Sam Mendes
32. Mel Gibson
33. The Wachowski Brothers
34. J.J. Abrams
35. Alfonso Cuaron
36. Hayao Miyazaki
37. Mike Leigh
38. Oliver Stone
39. Roman Polanski
40. Spike Jonze
41. Richard Linklater
42. Spike Lee
43. David Lynch
44. Wong Kar-Wai
45. Wes Anderson
46. Mira Nair
47. Andrew Stanton
48. Michael Moore
49. Mary Harron
50. Sidney Lumet

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20259527,00.html
_________________

[Gold Trumpet]

What a horrible list. I'm not faulting it for what directors are at what place. Even if a list had all the filmmakers I liked I would never agree with the standings. For me lists are more about who makes the final cut. With that said, I am faulting the list for having no foreign filmmakers outside the mainstream at all. Every one of them has either dabbled in American films of their own or have become celebrities within the film world. It's just ridiculous to leave out so many names and then have someone like Jon Favreau on there. I think by his admission he just makes movies and tries to make them good. Listing someone as a filmmaker does entail some auteur standing which Favreau seems to have no interest in.

[SiliasRuby]

GT, what did you expect? EW is a mainstream magazine. As Denis Leary once said "Life sucks, (especially when it comes expectations and what we want) get a fuckin' helmet." I apologize, I know that is a huge generalization and I don't mean to attack you personally. But, really?

[Gold Trumpet]

I know EW is mainstream, but they generally are a little better than other publications. This list could have been done by People magazine. I also don't care that you "personally attacked me" because you really overshot my frustation. I really don't care what EW says and if all I had to say was, "What a horrible list.", then I wouldn't have posted. I mainly wanted to make the other point about lists in general.

[SiliasRuby]

Granted.

[john]

It is, indeed, a terrible list. If Entertainment Weekly wasn't wholly irrelevant, in film and pop culture, it might make me respond with something more than a shrug.

As it stands, I don't think anyone who reads this list is gonna read this list or care. Save for a few curious teenagers who might potentially use it as a primer, but even they will wise up and expand their shit after a couple months.

So, aside from that and among the many (MANY) glaring omissions - no love for Terrence Malick or Alexander Payne? Not "active" enough, maybe, yet Cameron makes the cut?

You know, maybe this list was written by a fifteen year old.