Is is Martin scorcese universally acknowledged as the worlds greatest director?

EltonJohn69 · 14-06-2021 11:48am

Arghus wrote: »

It's an argument, but it's a bit of a silly one.

Jaws may have been a blockbuster, but it's got very little in common with what fills up the screens these days: it's dialogue heavy, adult, thoughtful, great acting, thematically deep etc, etc. It's exciting, but it's not empty and dumb. If anything its legions of lesser imitators just shows the genius of Spielberg.

There's also an argument that it isn't even the first blockbuster, arguably The Godfather that came out a few years previously could be viewed as such.

The argument of which of the two of them - Spielberg or Scorcese - superior is long running and essentially impossible to answer. Both are so distinct from each other and offer completely different things. It's so much an issue of personal taste.

Scorcese can do things that Spielberg can't do and Spielberg can do things that Scorcese can't do. Enjoy them both would be my verdict.

Mmm…. If you claim the Godfather was the model for the blockbuster strategy then you might as well say it was Easy rider that started the blockbuster.

My main issue with Spielberg is the over sentimentality and functionality of his work. Even with something as horrible as Holocaust he turns it into a story with a happy ending.

HillCloudHop · 14-06-2021 11:51am

Jurassic Park is my favourite childhood film.

Yurt2 · 14-06-2021 12:04pm

Nolan did about as good a job as is possible with the Batman franchise, all visually brilliant, superbly paced and plotted, and a real depth lent to the source material.

The rest of his work leaves me rather cold (The Prestige was pretty good though), TENET was trying to be too clever by half.

Mad_maxx · 14-06-2021 12:11pm

I actually quite liked Tenet , I needed to watch it three times to spot all of the tricks and plot devices

RulesOfNature · 14-06-2021 12:19pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I actually quite liked Tenet , I needed to watch it three times to spot all of the tricks and plot devices

You mean plotholes?

RulesOfNature · 14-06-2021 12:20pm

Yurt! wrote: »

Nolan did about as good a job as is possible with the Batman franchise, all visually brilliant, superbly paced and plotted, and a real depth lent to the source material.

The rest of his work leaves me rather cold (The Prestige was pretty good though), TENET was trying to be too clever by half.

The short batman scenes in batman v superman was better than the entirety of nolans trilogy

Arghus · 14-06-2021 12:24pm

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Mmm…. If you claim the Godfather was the model for the blockbuster strategy then you might as well say it was Easy rider that started the blockbuster.

My main issue with Spielberg is the over sentimentality and functionality of his work. Even with something as horrible as Holocaust he turns it into a story with a happy ending.

My point is that The Godfather marked a shift in how the business operated - big pre release publicity, opening widely instead of in drips and drabs. There are embryonic aspects of the blockbuster release and marketing formula there.

I'm not denigrating any of these films btw - blockbuster or not they're brilliant films.

It's true to say that sentimentality is a key aspect of Spielberg. He is a sentimentalist. And a showman. Some people can't get beyond that and I do understand that.

But there's more to him than that too in my view.

Schindler's List is a good example. Okay, the film ends ultimately in an uplifting message - well, maybe not quite uplifting, but not on a downer certainly - and it has been criticised for exactly that. But I think to write it off as a whole on account of that is reductive in the extreme. Some of the most vivid and scarily matter of fact depictions you'll see of inhumanity and the expendability of human life that you'll see anywhere are in that movie.

Schindler's List is a harsh, harsh, film. Some of the casual barbarism depicted is so matter of fact and chilling that at its most brutal it cuts deeper than even anything Scorcese has put up on screen.

Okay, slightly optimistic ending, but let's not forget that film is a brutal and gruelling watch, which pulls no punches about the horror.

Pherekydes · 14-06-2021 12:31pm

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Why Kubrick above Hitchcock?

I think the joke here is everyone ahead of Bay, even John Woo.

EltonJohn69 · 14-06-2021 12:42pm

Arghus wrote: »

My point is that The Godfather marked a shift in how the business operated - big pre release publicity, opening widely instead of in drips and drabs. There are embryonic aspects of the blockbuster release and marketing formula there.

I'm not denigrating any of these films btw - blockbuster or not they're brilliant films.

It's true to say that sentimentality is a key aspect of Spielberg. He is a sentimentalist. And a showman. Some people can't get beyond that and I do understand that.

But there's more to him than that too in my view.

Schindler's List is a good example. Okay, the film ends ultimately in an uplifting message - well, maybe not quite uplifting, but not on a downer certainly - and it has been criticised for exactly that. But I think to write it off as a whole on account of that is reductive in the extreme. Some of the most vivid and scarily matter of fact depictions you'll see of inhumanity and the expendability of human life that you'll see anywhere are in that movie.

Schindler's List is a harsh, harsh, film. Some of the casual barbarism depicted is so matter of fact and chilling that at its most brutal it cuts deeper than even anything Scorcese has put up on screen.

Okay, slightly optimistic ending, but let's not forget that film is a brutal and gruelling watch, which pulls no punches about the horror.

Fair point. I actually think Munich was a darker film then Schindler’s list , I have to give Spielberg credit for being harsh on Israel.

Yeah I guess there is seeds of the blockbuster in the godfather though it was a massively successful book so that played its part in big budget and wide release because there was so much demand to see it.

Arghus · 14-06-2021 1:00pm

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Fair point. I actually think Munich was a darker film then Schindler’s list , I have to give Spielberg credit for being harsh on Israel.

Yeah I guess there is seeds of the blockbuster in the godfather though it was a massively successful book so that played its part in big budget and wide release because there was so much demand to see it.

Another thing I would add to defend Spielberg is that his technique and ability to tell a story visually is fcking incredible.

A couple of years back Steven Soderbergh put up a rip of Raiders on his site, but reformatted as black and white and as a silent movie. The purpose was to show the importance of staging and visual storytelling and also to show Raiders is as good as it gets in these regards. Unfortunately the video is no longer available, well, it's out there somewhere I'm sure.

Basically: the film still fcking kills because the directorial mind behind it all had it going on to a ludicrous genius level, so when you boil the film down to its fundamentals, that essence is still pure filmmaking craft and art.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/sep/24/steven-soderbergh-recuts-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-silent-movie-steven-spielberg

Brian? · 14-06-2021 1:27pm

Did you smash it wrote: »

Kubricks style was cold. That’s not for everyone.

Did Kubrick direct a scene as hot, real and intense as this....even in the shining?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p4vuCfuFjDI

That's an unbelievable scene

But...

https://youtu.be/Qr2bSL5VQgM

Brian? · 14-06-2021 1:30pm

Greyfox wrote: »

Nonsense. That argument is for clowns who dont understand the fact that films are suppossed to entertain its audience.

I'm really enjoying this discussion, it'd be great if we didn't start calling people clowns

Tony EH · 14-06-2021 2:01pm

Brian? wrote: »

How many of Hitchcock’s films rise to the level of truly great?

For me:
The Birds
Rear Window
Vertigo
Psycho

Off the top of my head anyway. Many more are very good. But Kubrick never missed. Even the much maligned “Eyes Wide Shut” is a beautiful film.

See, this is it. When people think Hitchcock, they think the above.

They never even consider something like 'Lifeboat', 'Secret Agent', 'Murder', 'Under Capricorn' or 'The Paradine Case'. Alfred Hitchcock directed around 60 films, starting in the 20's, and a lot of them couldn't be named by most people off the top of their heads. They've probably never even seen them or have any intention to. But the go-to's are nearly always the movies he made in the latter part of his career.

The reason is that a lot of his films just kinda don't work today. They are very much grounded in the decade they were made and exhibit all the trappings of that. They even look a bit awkward now in many respects.

I'd argue that they were that way in the 80's, too, when I was taping or buying every Hitchcock film I could get my hands on, many of which I found underwhelming at the time, but convinced myself otherwise. Are they worth watching, sure, but I just don't try to kid myself any more. Even so called "classics" like 'Marnie' I'd say wouldn't reach a great movie list in most peoples minds.

I think there's a lot of guff that floats around about Hitchcock, even if he was genuinely a great director. But that status doesn't mean that there isn't a portion of stuff on his CV that really does leave a lot to be desired.

HillCloudHop · 14-06-2021 2:05pm

Yurt! wrote: »

Nolan did about as good a job as is possible with the Batman franchise, all visually brilliant, superbly paced and plotted, and a real depth lent to the source material.

The rest of his work leaves me rather cold (The Prestige was pretty good though), TENET was trying to be too clever by half.

Interstellar is Nolan's best film IMHO

Tony EH · 14-06-2021 2:07pm

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Casino > Schindler’s list

There is an argument to be made that Spielberg destroyed cinema with the invention of the blockbuster. No Spielberg then no endless Marvel sequels dominating cinemas.

One can hardly blame Spielberg for that though. He just wanted to make a film about a shark. That it exploded like it did and helped created the dreck of modern Hollywood was unforeseen by him and everyone else.

Also, while 'Jaws' did great box office, it was really 'Star Wars' that put the studios into blockbuster mode for the next 40 years. But again, all George Lucas wanted to do was make his little silly space film.

EltonJohn69 · 14-06-2021 2:11pm

Tony EH wrote: »

One can hardly blame Spielberg for that though. He just wanted to make a film about a shark. That it exploded like it did and helped created the dreck of modern Hollywood was unforeseen by him and everyone else.

Also, while 'Jaws' did great box office, it was really 'Star Wars' that put the studios into blockbuster mode for the next 40 years. But again, all George Lucas wanted to do was make his little silly space film.

He actually wanted to make a Flash Gordon movie but couldn’t get the rights.

timmyntc · 14-06-2021 2:13pm

Yurt! wrote: »

Nolan did about as good a job as is possible with the Batman franchise, all visually brilliant, superbly paced and plotted, and a real depth lent to the source material.

The rest of his work leaves me rather cold (The Prestige was pretty good though), TENET was trying to be too clever by half.

Nolan's work is all on the nose and no subtlety (memento aside).
His films are all about big spectacles, rather than actual good story or acting.

The Dark Knight Rises was a particularly awful one - with many totally non-sensical plot elements that exist solely because Nolan wanted to have that spectacle included.
He also has an unsual ability to get terrible performances from great actors.

14-06-2021 2:15pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I actually quite liked Tenet , I needed to watch it three times to spot all of the tricks and plot devices

The only way I could hate that any more is by being forced to watch it again.

Arghus · 14-06-2021 2:20pm

Brian? wrote: »

How many of Hitchcock’s films rise to the level of truly great?

For me:
The Birds
Rear Window
Vertigo
Psycho

Off the top of my head anyway. Many more are very good. But Kubrick never missed. Even the much maligned “Eyes Wide Shut” is a beautiful film.

Hitchcock had more great films than you've mentioned, far more:

North By Northwest
Rope
Shadow of A Doubt
Strangers on a Train
The Lady Vanishes
Notorious Rebecca
Marnie

And that's arguably not the lot.

Hitchcock’s films can seem dated to modern audiences, that is fair, but I don't think you'll find a more influential director in the history of cinema.

Maybe he didn't hit the bullseye as consistently as Kubrick, but Kubrick didn't make many films full stop and took long periods between them. Hitchcock has more misses because he worked at a faster clip for longer, but, the thing is, he also has more hits too.

Not knocking Kubrick necessarily. Maybe he is the superior artist of the two. It's almost impossible to say. Comparing film makers from different eras is extremely difficult, to the point where it's almost impossible. They did overlap to an extent, but, Kubrick worked in a different era could be much more explicit and frank, was given an unprecedented amount of creative control over his films. Hitchcock worked with the system, because that's how it was for the majority of his career.

Tony EH · 14-06-2021 2:22pm

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

He actually wanted to make a Flash Gordon movie but couldn’t get the rights.

Whatever. The point is the same. Lucas, like Spielberg before, had no idea how crazy their film would take off. Nobody did.

If you read the history of both films, it's clear that everyone was thankful that they even managed to get a finished product over the line. Placing a blame upon their heads for how modern Hollywood turned out is a bit silly.

Although one could point at Spielberg and claim that he helped perpetuate the blockbuster syndrome that diseases Hollywood by continuing to make the films he did after 'Jaws'. But that would be a little unfair due to the fact that most of them were fantastic films in their own right. Had 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', 'E.T.' or even 'Jurassic Park' been the same type of empty calories that modern superhero movies are, then it would be a more solid claim. But they're not.

EltonJohn69 · 14-06-2021 2:28pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Whatever. The point is the same. Lucas, like Spielberg before, had no idea how crazy their film would take off. Nobody did.

If you read the history of both films, it's clear that everyone was thankful that they even managed to get a finished product over the line. Placing a blame upon their heads for how modern Hollywood turned out is a bit silly.

Although one could point at Spielberg and claim that he helped perpetuate the blockbuster syndrome that diseases Hollywood by continuing to make the films he did after 'Jaws'. But that would be a little unfair due to the fact that most of them were fantastic films in their own right. Had 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', 'E.T.' or even 'Jurassic Park' been the same type of empty calories that modern superhero movies are, then it would be a more solid claim. But they're not.

Ready player one had a whole lot of empty calories.

EltonJohn69 · 14-06-2021 2:34pm

I just think you can’t put Scorcese/Kubrick in the same category as Spielberg… it’s like comparing The Velvet Undground and Coldplay

Arghus · 14-06-2021 2:35pm

That's just being silly now.

Tony EH · 14-06-2021 2:36pm

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Ready player one had a whole lot of empty calories.

That's why it wasn't mentioned.

Brian? · 14-06-2021 2:41pm

HillCloudHop wrote: »

Interstellar is Nolan's best film IMHO

I loved it, I was bowled over by it. Then the big reveal and I felt like screaming at the screen.

It was an awful twist that should haven never happened. Nolan is too fond of that crap. Just tell a story and get on with it.

Brian? · 14-06-2021 2:46pm

Arghus wrote: »

Hitchcock had more great films than you've mentioned, far more:

North By Northwest
Rope
Shadow of A Doubt
Strangers on a Train
The Lady Vanishes
Notorious Rebecca
Marnie

Very good, yes. But not great imo.

And that's arguably not the lot.

Hitchcock’s films can seem dated to modern audiences, that is fair, but I don't think you'll find a more influential director in the history of cinema.

Maybe he didn't hit the bullseye as consistently as Kubrick, but Kubrick didn't make many films full stop and took long periods between them. Hitchcock has more misses because he worked at a faster clip for longer, but, the thing is, he also has more hits too.

Not knocking Kubrick necessarily. Maybe he is the superior artist of the two. It's almost impossible to say. Comparing film makers from different eras is extremely difficult, to the point where it's almost impossible. They did overlap to an extent, but, Kubrick worked in a different era could be much more explicit and frank, was given an unprecedented amount of creative control over his films. Hitchcock worked with the system, because that's how it was for the majority of his career.

It’s an extremely difficult debate for anyone to win. I completely understand why people think Hitchcock was better than Kubrick but disagree.

No one seems to arguing with my no.1 pick: Kurosawa at least.

Brian? · 14-06-2021 2:48pm

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

I just think you can’t put Scorcese/Kubrick in the same category as Spielberg… it’s like comparing The Velvet Undground and Coldplay

I’ve always felt Barry Lyndon was the White Light/White Heat of cinema.

RulesOfNature · 14-06-2021 2:52pm

Brian? wrote: »

Very good, yes. But not great imo.

It’s an extremely difficult debate for anyone to win. I completely understand why people think Hitchcock was better than Kubrick but disagree.

No one seems to arguing with my no.1 pick: Kurosawa at least.

Because Kurosawa is the Hitchcock of Japan.

Arghus · 14-06-2021 2:53pm

https://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top250directors.htm

This site, They Shoot Pictures Don't They, is an absolute gold mine of cinema history and knowledge. If anything it's too comprehensive.

Their ranking of directors, based on number of films included in their exhaustive 1000 best films list, makes for some interesting reading.

Top 10:
Hitchcock
Welles
Kubrick
Fellini
Godard
Coppola
Bergman
Renoir
Ford
Kurosawa

Scorcese is #11
Spielberg is #24

I really recommend that site, it's a real motherlode of information.

EltonJohn69 · 14-06-2021 2:55pm

Brian? wrote: »

I’ve always felt Barry Lyndon was the White Light/White Heat of cinema.

Ha !

Is is Martin scorcese universally acknowledged as the worlds greatest director?

Comments