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

Keyzer · 14-06-2021 3:01pm

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.

You seem to be pinning everything wrong with cinema today on Spielberg. He didn't single handedly create the "blockbuster". Sure, he contributed but he didn't do it all on his own.

And what's wrong with blockbusters anyway? Some of my best childhood memories are of watching Terminator 2, Indiana Jones, The Matrix, Avatar. These are all great movies.

The current shambolic state of cinema has nothing to do with Spielberg, Lucas or any of the other directors from that era.

And Casino is no way a better movie than Schindlers List, thats ridiculous.

RulesOfNature · 14-06-2021 3:03pm

Keyzer wrote: »

You seem to be pinning everything wrong with cinema today on Spielberg. He didn't single handedly create the "blockbuster". Sure, he contributed but he didn't do it all on his own.

And what's wrong with blockbusters anyway? Some of my best childhood memories are of watching Terminator 2, Indiana Jones, The Matrix, Avatar. These are all great movies.

The current shambolic state of cinema has nothing to do with Spielberg, Lucas or any of the other directors from that era.

And Casino is no way a better movie than Schindlers List, thats ridiculous.

There has always been bad movies. Its a bit of confirmation bias - only the best and well made movies stood the test of time, so you don't remember the 1000s other bad movies made in the past.

Arghus · 14-06-2021 3:03pm

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.

99 times out a 100 I wouldn't like to say such a director is the best ever - because so much is down to subjective taste, but if a gun was put to my head I'd give Bergman a nod. I don't think anyone else dealt quite consistently and fearlessly with all the big questions like he did. That's just my take on it.

EltonJohn69 · 14-06-2021 3:20pm

Keyzer wrote: »

You seem to be pinning everything wrong with cinema today on Spielberg. He didn't single handedly create the "blockbuster". Sure, he contributed but he didn't do it all on his own.

And what's wrong with blockbusters anyway? Some of my best childhood memories are of watching Terminator 2, Indiana Jones, The Matrix, Avatar. These are all great movies.

The current shambolic state of cinema has nothing to do with Spielberg, Lucas or any of the other directors from that era.

And Casino is no way a better movie than Schindlers List, thats ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous ?

Brian? · 14-06-2021 3:21pm

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Why is it ridiculous ?

It isn’t. Casino is a much better film.

Andrewf20 · 14-06-2021 3:24pm

Andrei Tarkovsky is a well renowned director but his stuff can be a bit too weird for my and most people tastes. His 1979 film Stalker is still the best film ive ever seen though.

Arghus · 14-06-2021 3:26pm

Brian? wrote: »

It isn’t. Casino is a much better film.

Really?

Not just better - but much better?

I'd love to hear why.

Tony EH · 14-06-2021 3:26pm

'Casino' is certainly a more "enjoyable" film than 'Schindler's List', I'll say that. But I've long since tired of oh-so-important holocaust movies and Spielberg's one is no different.

However, 'Schindler's List' is still a very well made movie despite it's cliches, melodrama and, at times, over wrought dynamic.

Brian? · 14-06-2021 3:33pm

Arghus wrote: »

99 times out a 100 I wouldn't like to say such a director is the best ever - because so much is down to subjective taste, but if a gun was put to my head I'd give Bergman a nod. I don't think anyone else dealt quite consistently and fearlessly with all the big questions like he did. That's just my take on it.

Bergman is a bit of a black spot for me. I need to dive into his films more

Arghus · 14-06-2021 3:36pm

I'd agree that Casino is more enjoyable/entertaining than Schindlers List - but I don't think the purpose of Schindler's List is to be "entertaining". And if we're using the quality of how entertaining a movie as the final determinant in its ultimate quality then we may as well deem something like Predator to be the greatest work of cinema of all time.

Don't get me wrong, I love Casino, it's great BUT it's not perfect and Scorcese doesn't do anything particularly new with it - the style and world of Goodfellas is basically just transported to Las Vegas. Damn entertaining movie, really well made, but also a bit derivative of his own earlier work.

Brian? · 14-06-2021 3:49pm

Arghus wrote: »

I'd agree that Casino is more enjoyable/entertaining than Schindlers List - but I don't think the purpose of Schindler's List is to be "entertaining". And if we're using the quality of how entertaining a movie as the final determinant in its ultimate quality then we may as well deem something like Predator to be the greatest work of cinema of all time.

Don't get me wrong, I love Casino, it's great BUT it's not perfect and Scorcese doesn't do anything particularly new with it - the style and world of Goodfellas is basically just transported to Las Vegas. Damn entertaining movie, really well made, but also a bit derivative of his own earlier work.

Predator is the greatest film of all time.

Get to the chopah!!!

pioneerpro · 14-06-2021 3:52pm

Brian? wrote: »

Predator is the greatest film of all time.

Get to the chopah!!!

The Citizen Kane of Homoerotic SciFi.

Brian? · 14-06-2021 3:54pm

Arghus wrote: »

I'd agree that Casino is more enjoyable/entertaining than Schindlers List - but I don't think the purpose of Schindler's List is to be "entertaining". And if we're using the quality of how entertaining a movie as the final determinant in its ultimate quality then we may as well deem something like Predator to be the greatest work of cinema of all time.

Don't get me wrong, I love Casino, it's great BUT it's not perfect and Scorcese doesn't do anything particularly new with it - the style and world of Goodfellas is basically just transported to Las Vegas. Damn entertaining movie, really well made, but also a bit derivative of his own earlier work.

I think the characters in Casino make the film.

Spielberg somewhat sanitised Schindler himself and demonises the Nazis for effect, making them almost a caricature. Spielberg rarely does shades of great with characters, they're all evil or all good.

I'm struggling to actually make my argument here. I didn't like Schindlers list enough to rewatch it recently. So I could be way off.

pioneerpro · 14-06-2021 3:57pm

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Andrei Tarkovsky is a well renowned director but his stuff can be a bit too weird for my and most people tastes. His 1979 film Stalker is still the best film ive ever seen though.

Oh ye gods yes. Stunning movie based on the book Roadside Picnic which the STALKER games are based off too

Tony EH · 14-06-2021 4:08pm

Arghus wrote: »

I'd agree that Casino is more enjoyable/entertaining than Schindlers List - but I don't think the purpose of Schindler's List is to be "entertaining". And if we're using the quality of how entertaining a movie as the final determinant in its ultimate quality then we may as well deem something like Predator to be the greatest work of cinema of all time.

Well, all movies are there to "entertain" in some fashion and I don't think 'Schindler's List' is any different. To be entertained doesn't necessarily mean that you are laughing or enjoying something in the usual sense. It an merely mean that something has your attention and consideration.

My problem with 'Schindler's List' is what I outlined earlier in that's it's a melodrama, dressed up in the faux importance of Hollywood's take on the holocaust. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't a good melodrama. It is and it's certainly one of Spielberg's best films and has two great perfomances from Fiennes and Kingsley.

But I specifically used the word "enjoyable", not "entertaining". I find both films entertaining, but for different reasons.

Arghus wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I love Casino, it's great BUT it's not perfect and Scorcese doesn't do anything particularly new with it - the style and world of Goodfellas is basically just transported to Las Vegas. Damn entertaining movie, really well made, but also a bit derivative of his own earlier work.

That's what I thought when I saw it in 95 and I was mildly disappointed with it. But over the years, I've come to take it on its own merits and now find it to be one of Scorsese's greats.

I suppose for some, it'll never step out of the shadow of 'Goodfellas' because their vignette structures and the cast are very similar.

Arghus · 14-06-2021 4:14pm

Brian? wrote: »

I think the characters in Casino make the film.

Spielberg somewhat sanitised Schindler himself and demonises the Nazis for effect, making them almost a caricature. Spielberg rarely does shades of great with characters, they're all evil or all good.

I'm struggling to actually make my argument here. I didn't like Schindlers list enough to rewatch it recently. So I could be way off.

I completely disagree.

Schindler himself is shown at first to be a womanising, profit driven card carrying Nazi who initially is interested, in the cheap labour first and foremost. Yes, eventually, he becomes a more humane character, but he is definitely portrayed with shades of greys.

And the depiction central "baddie" of the film - Amon Goth - is stunningly emotionally complex. He's portrayed as a complete monster, a tyrant but also as a vulnerable and insecure man, with recognisable human frailties, with the capacity to do good and show mercy. It's one of the most complex depictions of evil in film. Casino has nothing - nothing - with that level of psychological depth. Of course, Ralph Fiennes has a lot to do with it, the performance is amazing.

It says a lot that when you eventually see him - coldly and brusquely - being hung at the end of the film, you feel sympathy for him to an extent, because despite all the evil deeds we've seen him commit, you have as viewers actually been shown the humanity of the character too.

Keyzer · 14-06-2021 4:17pm

Tony EH wrote: »

'Casino' is certainly a more "enjoyable" film than 'Schindler's List', I'll say that. But I've long since tired of oh-so-important holocaust movies and Spielberg's one is no different.

However, 'Schindler's List' is still a very well made movie despite it's cliches, melodrama and, at times, over wrought dynamic.

You cant base the quality of a movie and its director on its enjoyability rating - any film about the holocaust is going to come last based on that factor. Its not like you sit down with a few beers and korma on Friday night and stick on Schindlers List.

Anyway, there's no real point in arguing because all of this entirely subjective.

However, for me, Schindlers List is something more than a movie, its an astonishing masterpiece and not just because of the subject it deals with.

EltonJohn69 · 14-06-2021 4:28pm

pioneerpro wrote: »

The Citizen Kane of Homoerotic SciFi.

Predator is arguably the first mainstream Hollywood movie to address the AIDS crisis, a good six years before philadelphia.

Brian? · 14-06-2021 4:31pm

Arghus wrote: »

I completely disagree.

Schindler himself is shown at first to be a womanising, profit driven card carrying Nazi who initially is interested, in the cheap labour first and foremost. Yes, eventually, he becomes a more humane character, but he is definitely portrayed with shades of greys.

And the depiction central "baddie" of the film - Amon Goth - is stunningly emotionally complex. He's portrayed as a complete monster, a tyrant but also as a vulnerable and insecure man, with recognisable human frailties, with the capacity to do good and show mercy. It's one of the most complex depictions of evil in film. Casino has nothing - nothing - with that level of psychological depth. Of course, Ralph Fiennes has a lot to do with it, the performance is amazing.

It says a lot that when you eventually see him - coldly and brusquely - being hung at the end of the film, you feel sympathy for him to an extent, because despite all the evil deeds we've seen him commit, you have as viewers actually been shown the humanity of the character too.

You've inspired a rewatch.

Brian? · 14-06-2021 4:34pm

Keyzer wrote: »

You cant base the quality of a movie and its director on its enjoyability rating - any film about the holocaust is going to come last based on that factor. Its not like you sit down with a few beers and korma on Friday night and stick on Schindlers List.

Anyway, there's no real point in arguing because all of this entirely subjective.

However, for me, Schindlers List is something more than a movie, its an astonishing masterpiece and not just because of the subject it deals with.

It's subjectivity is exactly why it's worth arguing about.

This thread has already forced me to re evaluate some of Spielbergs work, I'd no interest in rewatching. That's a great thing

Brian? · 14-06-2021 4:36pm

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Predator is arguably the first mainstream Hollywood movie to address the AIDS crisis, a good six years before philadelphia.

Was it? Is the Predator actually an allegory for AIDS?

I really hope you're not pulling my leg here. I love Predator, it would be great if it had a hidden depth.

Tony EH · 14-06-2021 4:50pm

Keyzer wrote: »

You cant base the quality of a movie and its director on its enjoyability rating

That's not really what I am doing or intend to do.

I just used the term "enjoyable", in a rather facetious manner, because both movies are a serious and in a number of ways a tough watch. Although there's actually more visceral nastiness in 'Casino' than there is in 'Schindler's List', even if the latter movie has more umph in its subject matter.

Keyzer wrote: »

- any film about the holocaust is going to come last based on that factor. Its not like you sit down with a few beers and korma on Friday night and stick on Schindlers List.

And nowhere did I even suggest that one should. The thing is, when it comes to moves about the war in general, they tend to leave me relatively unsatisfied and Hollywood's obsession with the holocaust is no different. So, I am probably the worst person to sit down to anything about the war, because I'll tend to pick it apart as opposed to just simply watching the story.

Keyzer wrote: »

Anyway, there's no real point in arguing because all of this entirely subjective.

Of course, but why would that be a reason to kill a conversation or an "argument"?

Keyzer wrote: »

However, for me, Schindlers List is something more than a movie, its an astonishing masterpiece and not just because of the subject it deals with.

And that's perfectly fine.

Tony EH · 14-06-2021 4:57pm

Arghus wrote: »

I completely disagree.

Schindler himself is shown at first to be a womanising, profit driven card carrying Nazi who initially is interested, in the cheap labour first and foremost. Yes, eventually, he becomes a more humane character, but he is definitely portrayed with shades of greys.

And the depiction central "baddie" of the film - Amon Goth - is stunningly emotionally complex. He's portrayed as a complete monster, a tyrant but also as a vulnerable and insecure man, with recognisable human frailties, with the capacity to do good and show mercy.

Yes, but Schindler is the ONLY German depicted that has any kind of nuance and thus perpetuates the "good German" cliche which is one of the things I dislike about the movie. I don't think that Amon Goeth has any real humanity in the movie, despite Fiennes great performance. He's merely a paper thin psychopathic villain in the end albeit one that's easily influenced to produce a facsimile of humanity.

silliussoddius · 14-06-2021 5:06pm

Brian? wrote: »

Was it? Is the Predator actually an allegory for AIDS?

I really hope you're not pulling my leg here. I love Predator, it would be great if it had a hidden depth.

I think the depth of it's depth is that it's almost a modernized telling of Beowulf.

Brian? · 14-06-2021 5:09pm

Tony EH wrote: »

That's not really what I am doing or intend to do.

I just used the term "enjoyable", in a rather facetious manner, because both movies are a serious and in a number of ways a tough watch. Although there's actually more visceral nastiness in 'Casino' than there is in 'Schindler's List', even if the latter movie has more umph in its subject matter.

And nowhere did I even suggest that one should. The thing is, when it comes to moves about the war in general, they tend to leave me relatively unsatisfied and Hollywood's obsession with the holocaust is no different. So, I am probably the worst person to sit down to anything about the war, because I'll tend to pick it apart as opposed to just simply watching the story.

Of course, but why would that be a reason to kill a conversation or an "argument"?

And that's perfectly fine.

It's crazy that there is more visceral nastiness in Casino than a film about the holocaust, but it's true.

Tony EH · 14-06-2021 5:11pm

Brian? wrote: »

Was it? Is the Predator actually an allegory for AIDS?

I really hope you're not pulling my leg here. I love Predator, it would be great if it had a hidden depth.

I think that poster is definitely pulling something.

While John McTiernan and the two Thomas's probably had a loose Vietnam allegory floating around in their heads when they made the film, I'd say it's most certain that AIDS was the furthest thing from their minds.

Brian? · 14-06-2021 5:12pm

silliussoddius wrote: »

I think the depth of it's depth is that it's almost a modernized telling of Beowulf.

That's way deeper than I gave it credit for.

Make no mistake here, I love Predator. I absolutely love it for it's simplicity. It's also infinitely quotable.

Brian? · 14-06-2021 5:13pm

Tony EH wrote: »

I think that poster is definitely pulling something.

While John McTiernan and the two Thomas's probably had a loose Vietnam allegory floating around in their heads when they made the film, I'd say it's most certain that AIDS was the furthest thing from their minds.

A hidden enemy killing scantily clad beef cakes. How can it not be AIDS related! My eyes have been opened.

Arghus · 14-06-2021 5:35pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, but Schindler is the ONLY German depicted that has any kind of nuance and thus perpetuates the "good German" cliche which is one of the things I dislike about the movie. I don't think that Amon Goeth has any real humanity in the movie, despite Fiennes great performance. He's merely a paper thin psychopathic villain in the end albeit one that's easily influenced to produce a facsimile of humanity.

All I can say is that I disagree. I think there's more to the films portrayal of Goth and Fiennes performance than just a paper thin villain.

I don't think Schindler's List is flawless either. It is emotionally manipulative, aware of its own supposed high mindedness and a bit pat in its final conclusion. But I think it transcends those aspects and is genuinely powerful.

There is nastiness in Casino for sure - the head in the vice, the hammer, the being buried alive, the pen in the neck - it's chilling and horrible, but equally there's no burning piles of corpses, matter of fact summary executions or people being shot dead at random from a balcony at breakfast.

I think there's a point to that as well. Casino's violence is, in some respects, worse on the surface - you really hear the guys head crack in the vice - but there's a coldness and clinical quality to the onscreen death in SL, which, for me, makes it even worse and more genuinely harrowing. Death can happen at an instant, up close, or at a distance, for no reason at all and most of the time no-one blinks an eye because that's just the way it is and human life doesn't mean anything in these circumstances. I find that more disturbing than the flashes of brutality we get in Casino.

Muppet Man · 14-06-2021 5:49pm

would tarrantino get a look in at all? Pulp fiction one of my all time favourite movies.

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

Comments