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

Brian? · 13-06-2021 7:29pm

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Why Kubrick above Hitchcock? Kubrick is an all time great of course, but why do you think he’s above hitchcock? Kubrick had an awful tendency to direct actors to be as wooden as possible. Watch Full Metal Jacket - the actors are always deadpan and the delivery of the lines feel very stilted and off. It plagues his movies.

Same for kurosawa. Why put him above hitchcock? Subjectively you might say he made the best movies of all time. But objectively Hitchcock has done more for the industry.

Kurosawa is the top for the influence he had on film. He influenced Japanese, French and Hollywood film making more that any other director. I absolutely adore his films. But if you look at who great directors look out to, he’s usually the one.

Kubrick because every film he made was a masterpiece. I don’t see your point about Full Metal Jacket, the dead pan delivery is to juxtaposition the outbursts of verbal and physical violence. I think it works amazingly.

Hitchcock was great. But his films were essentially plays in films. Kubrick and Kurosawa did more than that. Especially Kubrick with 2001.

13-06-2021 7:50pm

Brian? wrote: »

Kurosawa is the top for the influence he had on film. He influenced Japanese, French and Hollywood film making more that any other director. I absolutely adore his films. But if you look at who great directors look out to, he’s usually the one.

Kubrick because every film he made was a masterpiece. I don’t see your point about Full Metal Jacket, the dead pan delivery is to juxtaposition the outbursts of verbal and physical violence. I think it works amazingly.

Hitchcock was great. But his films were essentially plays in films. Kubrick and Kurosawa did more than that. Especially Kubrick with 2001.

I really think you're selling Hitchcock short there.

RulesOfNature · 13-06-2021 7:56pm

Brian? wrote: »

Kurosawa is the top for the influence he had on film. He influenced Japanese, French and Hollywood film making more that any other director. I absolutely adore his films. But if you look at who great directors look out to, he’s usually the one.

Kubrick because every film he made was a masterpiece. I don’t see your point about Full Metal Jacket, the dead pan delivery is to juxtaposition the outbursts of verbal and physical violence. I think it works amazingly.

Hitchcock was great. But his films were essentially plays in films. Kubrick and Kurosawa did more than that. Especially Kubrick with 2001.

Directing movies is more than creating art, its a vocation that requires techniques, convention and as a person that elevated the profession and the industry, Hitchcock is far beyond Stanley Kubrick. Hitchcock is the entertainer/storyteller and Kubrick is the auteur/artist. Hitchcock created the ground rules for everyone that every director uses as convention. Hitchcock gave the role of director a superstar appeal, instead of just being an obscure weird profession that obsesses over 'art' - People started seeing a Hitchcock movie because it was a Hitchcock movie that was guaranteed to entertain. Hitchcock is no doubt the most influential director of all time. He has simply never made an unwatchable film. All the scripts are razor edge sharp and there's no ambiguity or plotholes.

Kubrick's career was a lot smaller than Hitchcock, partly because he was his opposite in many ways. Mind you Kubrick immensely admired Hitchcock.

Kubrick's films are often more mocked than copied. How many slasher movies have come out of Hitchcock's Psycho? How many Family Guy parodies have come out of Full Metal Jacket? Kubrick very rarely wrote his own movies, (contrast with Hitchcock), and sometimes changes direction of the script while they're filming, changing them dialogue by dialogue in the same scene. Most of Kubrick's movies have these weird stilted dialogue scenes that seem like simulations of autistic people talking. Some might call this artistic integrity, some might call it bad directing. Sometimes he'll get actors to do 100+ takes for one scene. Again, art or bad directing?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/how-shining-star-shelley-duvall-21615871

Not to mention the abuse he delivered to actresses. Art? Maybe. But definitely not professional.

Kubrick has a tendency to take something so easy and discombobulate it to something arduous, and sometimes unwatchable (Lolita). Its probably a reflection of his 'artistic' mindset - to make everything as nebulous and 'deep' as possible at the cost of straightforward storytelling. But to be honest, Kubrick is a great director but if you chop it down to what he does and the end result, you'll find that his output has been disproportionate compared to the effort he put into them. Hitchcock effortlessly made movies that were all consistently entertaining and watchable without ever abusing actors, taking 1000+ scenes or ever going over budget.

Hitchcock exemplified the 'perfect' director - professional, efficient and consistently profitable. From what he did for the industry, it allowed studios to take directors like Kubrick more seriously.

pioneerpro · 13-06-2021 8:05pm

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Hitchcock created the ground rules for everyone that every director uses as convention. Hitchcock gave the role of director a superstar appeal, instead of just being an obscure weird profession that obsesses over 'art' - People started seeing a Hitchcock movie because it was a Hitchcock movie that was guaranteed to entertain.

Rebecca was his first big Hollywood transition flick in 1940 - and granted it did extremely well for him - but 1941 had Orson Welles release Citizen Kane. I think you're stretching a bit here; he only really got going with Grace Kelly in the mid-50s. Orson Welles was the absolute multimedia behemoth a decade before him.

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Most of Kubrick's movies have these weird stilted dialogue scenes that seem like simulations of autistic people talking. Some might call this artistic integrity, some might call it bad directing.

You must point this out to me in Barry Lyndon or Dr. Strangelove some time. The only stilting noticeable in either was from method actors blowing it out of the ****ing park!

Sometimes he'll get actors to do 100+ takes for one scene. Again, art or bad directing?

The Shining answers that question comprehensively to me. That and Clockwork Orange alone does as much in terms of the advancement of cinematography as the whole of Hitchcock's oeuvre - auteur or not. 2001 quite frankly surpasses it.

Hitchcock effortlessly made movies that were all consistently entertaining and watchable without ever abusing actors, taking 1000+ scenes or ever going over budget.

So did Adam Sandler, to take that argument to its logical conclusion

RulesOfNature · 13-06-2021 8:07pm

pioneerpro wrote: »

You must point this out to me in Barry Lyndon or Dr. Strangelove some time. The only stilting noticeable in either was from method actors blowing it out of the ****ing park!

The Shining answers that question comprehensively to me. That and Clockwork Orange alone does as much in terms of the advancement of cinematography as the whole of Hitchcock's oeuvre - auteur or not. 2001 quite frankly surpasses it.

So did Adam Sandler, to take that argument to its logical conclusion

Take the very subjective 'art' concept from the equation and boil it down to this:

Who was better at their job?

Brian? · 13-06-2021 8:35pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I really think you're selling Hitchcock short there.

Not really. I have him at the third best director ever. That’s pretty great. Just not as great as Kubrick or Kurosawa

Brian? · 13-06-2021 8:42pm

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Directing movies is more than creating art, its a vocation that requires techniques, convention and as a person that elevated the profession and the industry, Hitchcock is far beyond Stanley Kubrick. Hitchcock is the entertainer/storyteller and Kubrick is the auteur/artist. Hitchcock created the ground rules for everyone that every director uses as convention. Hitchcock gave the role of director a superstar appeal, instead of just being an obscure weird profession that obsesses over 'art' - People started seeing a Hitchcock movie because it was a Hitchcock movie that was guaranteed to entertain. Hitchcock is no doubt the most influential director of all time. He has simply never made an unwatchable film. All the scripts are razor edge sharp and there's no ambiguity or plotholes.

Kubrick's career was a lot smaller than Hitchcock, partly because he was his opposite in many ways. Mind you Kubrick immensely admired Hitchcock.

Kubrick's films are often more mocked than copied. How many slasher movies have come out of Hitchcock's Psycho? How many Family Guy parodies have come out of Full Metal Jacket? Kubrick very rarely wrote his own movies, (contrast with Hitchcock), and sometimes changes direction of the script while they're filming, changing them dialogue by dialogue in the same scene. Most of Kubrick's movies have these weird stilted dialogue scenes that seem like simulations of autistic people talking. Some might call this artistic integrity, some might call it bad directing. Sometimes he'll get actors to do 100+ takes for one scene. Again, art or bad directing?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/how-shining-star-shelley-duvall-21615871

Not to mention the abuse he delivered to actresses. Art? Maybe. But definitely not professional.

Kubrick has a tendency to take something so easy and discombobulate it to something arduous, and sometimes unwatchable (Lolita). Its probably a reflection of his 'artistic' mindset - to make everything as nebulous and 'deep' as possible at the cost of straightforward storytelling. But to be honest, Kubrick is a great director but if you chop it down to what he does and the end result, you'll find that his output has been disproportionate compared to the effort he put into them. Hitchcock effortlessly made movies that were all consistently entertaining and watchable without ever abusing actors, taking 1000+ scenes or ever going over budget.

Hitchcock exemplified the 'perfect' director - professional, efficient and consistently profitable. From what he did for the industry, it allowed studios to take directors like Kubrick more seriously.

Htichcock was amazing. Absolutely no doubt about it. But at the end of it all the ultimate gauge for me is the end product, a film. Kubrick made more absolutely stunning and amazing films than Hitchcock, despite making a fraction of the total films.

Purely subjective of course. But I am not arguing Hitchcock wasn’t a great director. I am arguing that Kubrick was better because I love his films more. I love some of Hitchcocks films and routinely watch them, but I don’t love any as much as I love 2001, Full Metal Jacket, the Shining or Dr Stranglove.

To me Dr. Strangelove is actually the perfect film.

13-06-2021 8:46pm

Brian? wrote: »

Not really. I have him at the third best director ever. That’s pretty great. Just not as great as Kubrick or Kurosawa

I meant your description of him as directing film plays. You know that's what I meant because that's what I responded to.

Boards never changes...

Brian? · 13-06-2021 8:47pm

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Take the very subjective 'art' concept from the equation and boil it down to this:

Who was better at their job?

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.

Brian? · 13-06-2021 8:53pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I meant your description of him as directing film plays. You know that's what I meant because that's what I responded to.

Boards never changes...

Ah come on. You quoted my entire post without highlights. I’m not here for a silly argument. I’m engaged in a discussion that I was finding enjoyable.

What I meant was that there wasn’t much range to how Hitchcock directed. It was a lot of close in, 2 people in a shot cinematography. He was the best at it, amazing in fact. But look at the large art pieces Kurosawa directed in Ran or Kagemusha or the war scenes Kubrick directed in Full Metal Jacket or Barry Lyndon.

Then there’s 2001. The way Kubrick weaved music and movement was unbelievable.

To be clear again, Hitchcock was amazing. Just not as amazing as the other 2.

13-06-2021 9:01pm

Brian? wrote: »

Ah come on. You quoted my entire post without highlights. I’m not here for a silly argument. I’m engaged in a discussion that I was finding enjoyable.

What I meant was that there wasn’t much range to how Hitchcock directed. It was a lot of close in, 2 people in a shot cinematography. He was the best at it, amazing in fact. But look at the large art pieces Kurosawa directed in Ran or Kagemusha or the war scenes Kubrick directed in Full Metal Jacket or Barry Lyndon.

Then there’s 2001. The way Kubrick weaved music and movement was unbelievable.

To be clear again, Hitchcock was amazing. Just not as amazing as the other 2.

Yeah, fair enough.

branie2 · 13-06-2021 9:06pm

He's one of my favourite modern directors

RulesOfNature · 14-06-2021 1:36am

pioneerpro wrote: »

So did Adam Sandler, to take that argument to its logical conclusion

Adam Sandler no, but the underlying message is correct.

Do you know why Shakespeare is the immortal bard? Its because he made consistent great works that sold a ton of seats.

People have this warped thinking that being a director is an artist first and foremost. Actually its a middle manager job.

Hitchcock is the best director because while other directors might have had more 'artistic value', there was simply no one else that elevated the profession as much as he did. And there was no doubt immense artistic value in his work.

Surreptitious · 14-06-2021 7:04am

What about Christopher Nolan? I love his films.

14-06-2021 8:40am

Surreptitious wrote: »

What about Christopher Nolan? I love his films.

I did too until Tenet.

Spielberg > Scorcese anyway.
For me, too much over acting in Scorcese films.

Brian? · 14-06-2021 8:46am

Surreptitious wrote: »

What about Christopher Nolan? I love his films.

The Batman films were good. Inception was ok.

Most of the rest were brutal. I see memento get's 8.4 on IMDB, but I thought it was only ok.

Brian? · 14-06-2021 8:48am

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

I did too until Tenet.

Spielberg > Scorcese anyway.
For me, too much over acting in Scorcese films.

Over acting? No way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63zCFSm-fuQ

14-06-2021 9:08am

Brian? wrote: »

Over acting? No way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63zCFSm-fuQ

That could be from almost any Godfather- GoodfellasCasinoIrishmanSopranos

Put Pacino/DeNiro in any scene you get a hock of ham draped with prosciutto crudo, served an array of Clonakilty black and white puddings.

storker · 14-06-2021 9:12am

Brian? wrote: »

It's disputing time I'm afraid.

For me it's:

1. Kurosawa
2. Kubrick
3. Hitchcock
4. Scorsese
.
.
.
.
2582898. Bay

2582899. Wu

Keyzer · 14-06-2021 9:32am

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Spielberg isn’t fit to lace the boots of Martin Scorcese.

With all due respect, that's an idiotic statement.

The argument is obviously entirely subjective based on individual preference, but Schindler's List is arguably the greatest film ever made. Saying Spielberg isn't fit to tie Marty's shoelaces is ridiculous.

14-06-2021 9:34am

Brian? wrote: »

Over acting? No way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63zCFSm-fuQ

great scene that

EltonJohn69 · 14-06-2021 9:38am

pioneerpro wrote: »

Spielberg's subtlety is the point here in terms of his skill. Man absolutely knows his ****, and is a master at framing in particular. Blockbuster intimacy par excellence. Jaws is one of the great ignored Directorial gems in just so many respects.

You know who's a seriously idisoyncratic and immediately recognisable Director who kids love? Michael Bay. Don't think we'd be making the same arguments though

The rock is a great movie, maybe even a masterpiece ???

EltonJohn69 · 14-06-2021 9:58am

Keyzer wrote: »

With all due respect, that's an idiotic statement.

The argument is obviously entirely subjective based on individual preference, but Schindler's List is arguably the greatest film ever made. Saying Spielberg isn't fit to tie Marty's shoelaces is ridiculous.

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.

Brian? · 14-06-2021 10:10am

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.

That's a hot take right there. I don't disagree.

Spielberg essentially invented the summer blockbuster. Which slowly strangled all the originality out of made marketed cinema. You can have now have a Comic book adaptation or a sequel for your viewing pleasure. 9 fast and furious films. Case closed. Damn you Steven, damn you straight to hell!!!!

dvdman1 · 14-06-2021 10:16am

Stanley Kubrick is way ahead of Scorsese

14-06-2021 11:09am

To be fair, if I wanted a movie about a bunch of Italian lads mumbling at each other in their wife beaters, before clipping one of themselves, Scorcese would be the go-to guy.

Did you smash it · 14-06-2021 11:33am

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

RulesOfNature · 14-06-2021 11:33am

Surreptitious wrote: »

What about Christopher Nolan? I love his films.

Christopher Nolan is a hack. I've been saying this for years. He is simply overrated.

TENET finally broke the camel's back, but even way back with The Batman Movies, which were carried entirely by the actors, everything that Nolan had a direct hand in was a hot mess.

Just watch this choreography:

Nolan insists on directing action scenes in his movies, but they always fail.

Nolan also does his own scripts most of the time - which is why they're awful most of the time too. Interstellar at the end: Love is the answer to everything. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz

Not to mention all the glaring plotholes in the Batman movies, getting worse towards the end (The Dark Knight Rises) when Batman literally teleports 500 meters above the ocean and outruns a nuke. What the actual f*ck?

And do not get me started on TENET. It is awfully written.

On the other hand, one thing he is excellent at is being a Middle Manager. He consistently makes profitable movies, which makes studios receptive to his ideas (like Hitchcock). He is adept at hiring and delegating top-tier staff and actors. Like this guy with the funny name:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Pfister

And of course Hans Zimmer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Zimmer

How could he have known Heath Ledger was going to be the greatest Joker ever on film? Nobody knows. Heath Ledger was a rom com drama actor. But Nolan managed to see past that through unknown methods and picked him out of a dozen other more obvious actors.

Arghus · 14-06-2021 11:37am

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.

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.

Greyfox · 14-06-2021 11:37am

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.

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

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

Comments