Is Michael Haneke the best Film Director in the 21st century ?

sxt

Three of his last four movies he directed , he wrote the screenplay to all these movies as well .

2012 Amour

2009 The White Ribbon

2005 Caché

It's not really an easy question to answer. For my money, the best directors working today are Joss Whedon and Darren Aronofsky.

WatchWolf

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not really an easy question to answer. For my money, the best directors working today are Joss Whedon and Darren Aronofsky.

Joss Whedon has only directed television and The Avengers.

At the risk of sounding like an asshole -- How could one even consider him to be the best film director of the 21st century?

e_e

Yeah he's definitely high up there, would go in my top 10 easily. Hard to tell 13 years into the century though, especially when some of the best are not exactly the most prolific. I think Paul Thomas Anderson has made 3 absolute masterpieces though, and such directors as Coen Bros and Apichatpong Weerasethakil are real contenders too.

Anybody seen Haneke's parody twitter account? it's absolutely hilarious

https://twitter.com/Michael_Haneke

johnny_ultimate

As with trying to define anything in terms of 'the best', it's a problematic question and will differ from person to person. Plus, its hard to measure someone's influence and staying power without the benefit of hindsight. But I have to admit I think Haneke almost more than anyone working today has the potential to be remembered a hundred years from now as a truly great criteria. He fulfills pretty much every criteria I consider admirable or important in a director.

He's bold - his films constantly tackle controversial, provocative subject matter that other directors wouldn't go near.

He's distinctive - while his film's styles can differ wildly, the command Haneke has over his images ensures the films are distinctly his. Added to that recurring themes, ideas and concerns - to pick two examples, his characters are often 'repressing' something, and his films regularly have central upper middle-class characters named 'Anne and George(s) - and you can easily identify 'a Michael Haneke film'.

He has a number of frequent collaborators and muses - Isabelle Huppert and Juliette Binoche being the two best known. Plus, he's a wonderful director of actors throughout all his work.

He's visually adventurous, ranging from the stark black & white photography of White Ribbon to the formal experimentation of Cahce. Collaborating with his cinematographers, his films often actively invite the viewer to examine and interpret the shots (often settling on long takes and busy compositions). He doesn't always draw attention to 'important' aspects of the frame other directors do - he forces us to work alongside him. He's frequently critiques the way film works too, Funny Games infamous remote control being a particularly noteworthy example.

He's diverse. The apocalypse of Hour of the Wolf. The period bleakness of White Ribbon. The claustrophobic, blackly comic endurance test that is Funny Games. The psychosexual character study of the Piano Teacher. The ensemble mystery of Code Unknown. The intense but extremely moving love story of Amour. The socially-aware thrills of Cache. There's plenty more too! Not a bad range for a late-starter. All he needs to do is give in and finally make that wacky comedy he's always promising

He's consistent. Barring arguably the rather redundant 'Funny Games' remake, his films are reliably fascinating and inventive. Plus, he's constantly honing his skills - while his early films are by no means bad (they're actually really good from what I've seen), he's constantly building on his style and storytelling.

So yeah, I definitely think there are very few directors working on the same quality level as Haneke (although there are a lot of younger ones who have yet to make enough films to build the broad filmography Haneke has). Obviously there's plenty of contemporary directors I feel share many if not all of the above traits too, but Haneke really is a one of a kind, which is probably the greatest compliment one can give a director. He is a master director who is never less than in complete control. Cinema would be a much poorer place without him.

ricero

Christopher nolan would be my number one at the moment

krudler

Someone who doesn't get enough credit imo is Danny Boyle, he makes films that are always visually striking, yet really vary in subject matter. From drug addiction to a kids film to sci-fi to horror and stuff like Slumdog and 127 Hours along the way, least he's diverse gotta give him that.

Joss Whedon? He's made two movies and a handful of tv episodes, doesn't have enough of a track record to be considered, he's a great creative talent though

FlashD

No, Michael Haneke isn't the best film director in the 21st century. I see he's been diecting since 1974 so he is more of a 20th Century director and unfortunately for him there is a hell of a lot of competition in that Century.

Ask the average film goer who 'Haneke' is, the word 'WHO?' says it all.

Love him or hate him, the director who currently creates the biggest buzz, excites audiences, directs large casts and crews on huge budgets in Christopher Nolan. He is at top of his game, has huge vision and is super successful.

Success is the measure of being the best in today's world.

e_e

FlashD wrote: »

Ask the average film goer who 'Haneke' is, the word 'WHO?' says it all.

Just because the average film goer is clueless about such things doesn't negate Haneke's talent and vision.

I find this "commercial success = quality" argument problematic at the best of times. It's a bit like saying McDonalds is better than all restaurants just because it's cheap, easily accessible and more people flock to it. I'm not knocking Nolan as a director though but you have to judge them on a film by film basis, how it does commercially and how many people like it is only secondary.

e_e

krudler wrote: »

Someone who doesn't get enough credit imo is Danny Boyle, he makes films that are always visually striking, yet really vary in subject matter. From drug addiction to a kids film to sci-fi to horror and stuff like Slumdog and 127 Hours along the way, least he's diverse gotta give him that.

I'm really unsure about Boyle. Trainspotting and 127 Hours were good but Slumdog was absolutely dreadful imo and 28 Days Later really ran out of steam in its last half hour. Very inconsistent.

Brian?

ricero wrote: »

Christopher nolan would be my number one at the moment

I don't get it when it comes to Christopher Nolan. He's directed 3 Batman films, Inception, Insomnia and Memento.

So 4 big budget blockbusters and a couple of ok films. Fair play, he wrote most of them as well.


But IMO he has yet to do anything that can be considered a classic or anything that puts him in the class of a great director.

Best director of the 21st century: The Coen Brothers. Or is that cheating?

WatchWolf

WatchWolf wrote: »

Joss Whedon has only directed television and The Avengers.

At the risk of sounding like an asshole -- How could one even consider him to be the best film director of the 21st century?

Avengers, Cabin in the Woods, Serenity and, slightly pushing it, Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog.

All written and directed by him, plus the theme tune to Serenity/Firefly and the majority of songs in Dr. Horrible, I believe. So the guy does horror, sci-fi, musicals and action. All pretty well. Not many directors can.

I take it back, he only wrote Cabin in the Woods. Drew Goddard directed it.

e_e

Drew Goddard directed Cabin in the Woods.

e_e

e_e wrote: »

Drew Goddard directed Cabin in the Woods.

Went to double check and corrected my mistake once I realized that I had made it.

krudler

e_e wrote: »

I'm really unsure about Boyle. Trainspotting and 127 Hours were good but Slumdog was absolutely dreadful imo and 28 Days Later really ran out of steam in its last half hour. Very inconsistent.

28 Days does tail off in the 2nd half, the first hour or so is fantastic though, Sunshine is really underrated, and its one of the best looking movies of the last decade

Da Shins Kelly

I'm gonna go with Paul Thomas Anderson on this one. He really knows how to get great performances out of his actors.

pixelburp

'Best' according to what criteria? More than a little bit glib tbh to reduce ~13 years of cinema into one mans specific output. Never have quite understood our desire to order or compartmentalise film/music/TV/sport into Top10s or best-ofs: seems too reductionist by half.

Besides, nevermind the audiences' taste differing from person to person, one directors vision is going to deviate quite a bit from the next. Whilst I fully admit to having never seen Hanekes films, I'll go out on a limb here and suggest his aims & objectives differ a great deal from someone like Nolans - so it's hardly fair to judge one against the other in a Battle-Royale style discussion.

Funny thing is I believe all the suggested directors will endure over the years, each on merit I'm sure; all deserve praise for being the 'best' at what they do & just because one mightn't be a commercial success, or the other lacks artistic chops, this shouldn't blind us to what their strengths are.

For the sake of the discussion, I think Danny Boyle doesn't get enough praise for having the energy and enthusiasm to not only experiment in different genres - something that many directors wouldn't dare do either through myopia, snobbery or whatnot - but in different media; say what you will about the event, Boyle committed his heart & soul to the Olympics Opening ceremony and was great entertainment in the end.

johnny_ultimate

FlashD wrote: »

Success is the measure of being the best in today's world.

Absolute rubbish. Financial success / ability to procure obscene budgets are well down the list of criteria I'd consider for a great director. If anything, bigger budgets can be a massive artistic burden. If we were going on the mainstream success=greatness scale, Michael Bay would be one of the most important living film directors. He isn't. Sure, some great directors are lucky to enjoy financial success and mainstream recognition - someone like Alfred Hitchcock - but they're almost exceptions.

By the way, I think Christopher Nolan is a fantastic director, but for reasons far, far beyond his commercial success.

Ask the average film goer who 'Haneke' is, the word 'WHO?' says it all.

If the average film goer hasn't heard of Haneke - one of the most acclaimed and renowned of contemporary auteurs - then that's their own damn fault, really. Yes, the mechanisms of commercialism keep his films out of multiplexes, but there's no reason a film-fan shouldn't be aware of his existence. Plenty if not a majority of filmgoers are unlikely to have heard of Sergei Eisenstein, Yasujiro Ozu, Kenji Mizoguchi, Ingmar Bergman, F.W. Murnau, C.T. Dreyer, Francois Truffaut, Andrei Tarkovsky etc etc... But their glorious filmographies have stood the test of time and have had a major impact on the language of film, the repercussions of which can still be felt today. Right now there are countless important directors working outside the mainstream - Wong Kar-wai, Bela Tarr, Sion Sono, Leos Carax, Guy Maddin, Kenneth Lonergan Hirokazu Kore-eda, Asghar Farhadi, the list goes on. These are film-makers regularly more adventerous and accomplished than even the best of the Hollywood talents (of which I'd rank the likes of David Fincher, Rian Johnson, Aronofsky, Bieglow, The Coens and Nolan quite highly). Again, mainstream success is such an insignificant measure of worthiness that is pretty much completely redundant, especially when so many supposed film fans run scared at the mere sight of subtitles.

Ranking directors in terms of 'greatness' is indeed pretty much an exercise in futility. We all have our favourites. We should just be glad we have filmmakers as brave and singular as Michael Haneke working today.

Tipsy McSwagger

Fincher for me. Always look forward to his films.

AnonoBoy

FlashD wrote: »

Success is the measure of being the best in today's world.

How do you measure success?

If we look at the Oscars, Haneke is more successful.

He's nominated for best director this year. Nolan has never been nominated.

Aidric

I am recently on the record in this forum as stating that Haneke is matched only by Kubrick when it comes to sustained brilliance in film making.

Our film moderator has articulated his qualities well in a previous post so I won't repeat the same points. Above all else he is a brave director and continues to question his audience. As such, he will always have my attention.

FlashD

AnonoBoy wrote: »

How do you measure success?

If we look at the Oscars, Haneke is more successful.

He's nominated for best director this year. Nolan has never been nominated.

the oscars. Sorry saw them once years ago when Titanic cleaned up.

'I'm the king of the world, wooo woo wooo' ...you get the message.

ViveLaVie

If someone wanted to educate themselves on these kinds of directors that exist somewhat outside of the mainstream, how would they do so?

Aidric

e_e wrote: »

Anybody seen Haneke's parody twitter account? it's absolutely hilarious

https://twitter.com/Michael_Haneke

Internet gold. His most recent cracked me up.

Michael Haneke ‏@Michael_Haneke
zero dark 20 isnt the 1st bst picture nominee 2b pro torture. didnt u guys c tree of life? it was like bein waterborded by mothr nature lol

johnny_ultimate

ViveLaVie wrote: »

If someone wanted to educate themselves on these kinds of directors that exist somewhat outside of the mainstream, how would they do so?

Where to start! Keep an eye on the films that are attracting particular buzz at the likes of the Cannes or Venice film festivals. See what's playing in the IFI or Lighthouse if you're near Dublin, or cinema clubs if you're down the country. Sight & Sound is well worth a monthly purchase to keep track of what's happening in the whole spectrum of cinema. Generally keep an eye on what films are receiving particular critical hyperbole

ViveLaVie

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Where to start! Keep an eye on the films that are attracting particular buzz at the likes of the Cannes or Venice film festivals. See what's playing in the IFI or Lighthouse if you're near Dublin, or cinema clubs if you're down the country. Sight & Sound is well worth a monthly purchase to keep track of what's happening in the whole spectrum of cinema. Generally keep an eye on what films are receiving particular critical hyperbole

Thanks! I have been interested in film for quite a while now but sadly I didn't recognise a lot of the directors on your previous post. I know a few, such as Murnau, but too few! Have you any specific films you recommend I start with?

johnny_ultimate

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Thanks! I have been interested in film for quite a while now but sadly I didn't recognise a lot of the directors on your previous post. I know a few, such as Murnau, but too few! Have you any specific films you recommend I start with?

Could be here all day Sticking with the directors I mentioned (a relatively crude scattershot, truth be told), here's some random choices I would recommend to absolutely anyone... Apologies if I'm overlapping on anything you've already seen / know about.

Sergei Eisenstein - Battleship Potemkin
Yasujiro Ozu - Tokyo Story / Late Spring
Kenji Mizoguchi - Ugetsu Monogatari / Life of O-Haru
Ingmar Bergman - Persona / The Seventh Seal
F.W. Murnau - Sunrise: A Tale of Two Humans
C.T. Dreyer - Passion of Joan of Arc (must watch more of his films myself, they are on 'the list')
Francois Truffaut - Jules et Jim / Day for Night
Andrei Tarkovsky - Stalker / Andrei Rublev
Wong Kar-wai - Chungking Express / In the Mood for Love
Bela Tarr - The Turin Horse is probably a better place to start than the seven-hour long Satantango
Sion Sono - Love Exposure / Himizu
Leos Carax - Holy Motors / Lovers on the Bridge
Guy Maddin - My Winnipeg
Kenneth Lonergan - You Can Count on Me / Margaret
Hirokazu Kore-eda - I Wish / Nobody Knows
Asghar Farhadi - A Separation / About Elly
And of course... Michael Haneke - Hidden (Cache) / Amour

tupac_healy

Brian? wrote: »

I don't get it when it comes to Christopher Nolan. He's directed 3 Batman films, Inception, Insomnia and Memento.

So 4 big budget blockbusters and a couple of ok films. Fair play, he wrote most of them as well.


But IMO he has yet to do anything that can be considered a classic or anything that puts him in the class of a great director.

Thats the good thing about opinions! They are only just that & nothing more.

In my opinion he took a big step towards being a great director WITH Memento, such a brilliant way to tell the story!

Also, you forgot one of his best films, the prestige! This man just quite simply makes great movies that hold attention and spark debates

AnonoBoy

FlashD wrote: »

the oscars. Sorry saw them once years ago when Titanic cleaned up.

'I'm the king of the world, wooo woo wooo' ...you get the message.

But you get my point. What is 'success' - box office, awards?

I don't think you can measure talent by either really. They may be indicators of talent but for every film that is remarkable and rakes in loads of money or awards there's one that's woeful that does the same.

Decuc500

I might appreciate Michael Haneke's films if his treatment of animals wasn't so bad. He has several scenes of animals being killed in his films. Surely there's no place for real animal deaths in a movie? I’m sure in each of those scenes he’s trying to make a point but can he not do that by using a prop or just not showing it?

I don't care if people say it's hypocritical to eat meat and at the same time object to animals being killed for art. I also object to the ‘sure the cow or pig was going to die anyway’ line. Coppola shouldn’t have shown it in Apocalypse Now (interesting to see he now regrets it) and Walter Hill shouldn’t have included it in Southern Comfort.

Look, my cat was killed by a car yesterday so I’m feeling a bit delicate, but artists exploiting animals for their ‘art’ just pisses me off and Michael Haneke should seriously be held accountable about it.

Oh, and the most interesting film maker working today is PT Anderson!

TwoShedsJackson

Brian? wrote: »

I don't get it when it comes to Christopher Nolan. He's directed 3 Batman films, Inception, Insomnia and Memento.

So 4 big budget blockbusters and a couple of ok films. Fair play, he wrote most of them as well.


But IMO he has yet to do anything that can be considered a classic or anything that puts him in the class of a great director.

Best director of the 21st century: The Coen Brothers. Or is that cheating?

Nolan also directed The Prestige, which I think is his best film, and one of the best five films of the last ten years.

MakeEmLaugh

Am I alone in thinking Haneke's Amour was a teensy-weensy bit overrated? Don't get me wrong: excellent performances, an admirable lack of sentiment and the courage to tackle a subject most filmmakers would avoid, granted. But it was no Caché, no The White Ribbon, no The Piano Teacher. Methinks I bit of bandwagon-jumping is afoot...

Anyway, my money is on Steve McQueen. Only two films into his directorial career - Hunger and Shame - but both are absolute knockouts.

Cannot wait for his next feature, Twelve Years a Slave. Starring our own Michael Fassbender and Ruth Negga, as well as the brilliant Quvenzhané Wallis from last year's Beasts of the Southern Wild. And as a black Briton, McQueen should be able to invest his film with a bit more seriousness than the fun but insubstantial Django Unchained.

johnny_ultimate

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Am I alone in thinking Haneke's Amour was a teensy-weensy bit overrated? Don't get me wrong: excellent performances, an admirable lack of sentiment and the courage to tackle a subject most filmmakers would avoid, granted. But it was no Caché, no The White Ribbon, no The Piano Teacher. Methinks I bit of bandwagon-jumping is afoot...

I think when it comes to ranking masterpieces, it all becomes a bit pointless TBH. Yes I think Caché remains for me the definitive Haneke production, but Amour is still a profoundly involving and masterfully crafted film. Yes, if push came to aggressively shove I might pick a few of Haneke's other films over it. But it's another superb addition to a rich filmography, even if it's undeniably a bit more straightforward and less explicitly provocative than his other material. We're all entitled to preferences, but I certainly don't think Amour's reception has been hyperbolic - it's still more expertly crafted and emotionally devastating than 99% of other films out there.

Kinski

FlashD wrote: »

Success is the measure of being the best in today's world.

You win the complete works of Dan Brown, a Michael Bay boxset, and tickets to see Justin Bieber in concert.

tupac_healy

Kinski wrote: »

You win the complete works of Dan Brown, a Michael Bay boxset, and tickets to see Justin Bieber in concert.

Exaclty Best (subjective anyway) does not equal most successful

Mickeroo

I'm slightly ashamed to say I've never watched a single Haneke film. Might have to remedy this. Is there any others apart fom Caché on Netflix?

johnny_ultimate

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm slightly ashamed to say I've never watched a single Haneke film. Might have to remedy this. Is there any others apart fom Caché on Netflix?

Code Unknown, the original Funny Games and The Piano Teacher are on US Netflix. Piano Teacher is particularly excellent.

The White Ribbon is going for cheap online too so well worth checking out.

Aidric

Parody trailer for Star Wars 7 as directed by Michael Haneke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mWYYnW8AhY

On a sad note the last tweet from the parody account was on the night of the oscars. I miss those daily belly aches.

donfers

three pages in and no mention yet of michael bay - this forum has gone to pot:mad:

Alfred Borden

Has to be Christopher Nolan, every film he directed is a masterpiece.

MakeEmLaugh

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm slightly ashamed to say I've never watched a single Haneke film. Might have to remedy this. Is there any others apart fom Caché on Netflix?

Several of his films are on Volta, an independent Irish Video-on-Demand website. It doesn't have the flat-rate unlimited offer that Netflix has, but it has a much better selection of films, in my opinion.

Check it out here.