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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

That's just being silly now.

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 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.

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.

Brian? wrote: »

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

Really?

Not just better - but much better?

I'd love to hear why.

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.

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.

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.

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.