10. David Lynch. Don't try to make any sense out of his strange films-- they're not supposed to make sense. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.
9. Quentin Tarantino. What is there to say about this genius that hasn't already been said? Every one of his creations is a treasure. If they auctioned off his poop, I would bid.
8. Luis Bunuel. Watching his legendary Belle de Jour without any distractions, in a dark room, having zero preconceived judgments, is one of my favorite movie-watching experiences.
7. Paul Thomas Anderson. His single-shot panoramas are amazing to behold. If only he could fall out of love with Julianne Moore.
6. Woody Allen. Due to his admirable prolificacy, he's bound to crank out some real duds from time to time. Another Woman is my favorite movie of all time, and I keep gaining new levels of insight every time I watch Deconstructing Harry.
5. Buster Keaton. While I admit that I have not seen a whole lot of his movies, his work was critical to the art form. A true innovator. And without him, there would have been no Benny and Joon.
4. Billy Wilder. What an amazing, self-reflective work of art (imitating life, imitating art) is Sunset Boulevard. "Words, words, words!"
3. Frank Capra. It is said that he made It Happened One Night in a month, yukking it up the whole time with Clark Gable, while a smug Claudette Colbert sat idly by.
2. William Wyler. He shot Roman Holiday on location, which was unheard of at the time. And he made Funny Girl, which, considering the glorious star, had to have been quite a challenge.
1. Alfred Hitchcock. He was an amazing director, a legendary icon, and a good dad: he pulled many a string for dumpy daughter Patricia. (Well, to be fair, anyone would look dumpy next to Janet Leigh.)
9 comments:
I didn't even know "prolificacy" was a word.
Because it's not.
So, can't argue with your top six one bit, and, having never seen Bunuel's surrealist works, won't opine on him.
On the other hand, Tarantino as genius??!?! The guy can write very well, I'll give you that, but his cinematic style is "borrowing" from true geniuses (at some point, we'll have to go through Kill Bill and identify how many scenes he stole from other works). And, he's too much in love with "style" - sometimes, interfering with actual flow of a work. Just because they did it that way in the 70's doesn't make it right!
Sorry, I like Tarentino and all and I give him credit to even fit on a top-10 list, the that word does not fit him.
As for PT, I like him, too, but he's a little hit and miss sometimes (though Magnolia is on my top 10 dramas list).
You have the gall to criticize Tarantino, and then you say Magnolia is on your top ten dramas list. Talk about a movie that's entirely about style with only a modicum of substance. There are two subplots in that film (out of twenty, thirty?) that even deserve to be on screen. Guh!
Maybe top ten is a little much, you're right (but certainly top fifty); personally, I like the subplots (much more than Crash, I think we can agree). As for style over substance, I think Anderson hits a few themes (the relationships of fathers and children; what one thinks one has to do to be liked; the relations between men and women) in a number of ways. The "subplots" are necessary in his language to view these themes from different aspects, lending substance to his style.
As for Tarantino, his substance is vastly overshadowed by his style. What do people remember from Pulp Fiction? "Bring out the gimp." "Who's Zed? Zed's dead, baby, Zed's dead." "What do they call a quarter-pounder in France? A Royale." And Uma and Travolta dancing. (The argument will be that people remember the frogs in Magnolia, and they were random, but they were the deus ex machina to allow an exit of the film). There is substance in Tarantino's works (True Romance and Res Dogs more so than Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown), but is it really original imagery? He too often rearranges the images of his heroes. It would be like saying the arranger of a work of music is more impressive than its compser.
I'll say it again, I like Tarantino, and I like his works (I own 5 of his films, plus True Romance). I wouldn't say he doesn't deserve to be on a top ten list either (just not mine). I just don't consider him genius. I also like Sam Raimi, but I wouldn't call him a genius either.
Like I said about QT in my post, I don't care that he's popular, or that the populace likes him for stupid reasons. When I think about Pulp Fiction, I think about Marcellus' speech about pride to Butch with the background of "Let's Stay Together," Butch's late-night conversation with Fabiana, the conversation about Tony Rocky Horror at Jack Rabbit Slims, the household of Eric Stolz' drug dealer, and Sam Jackson's admonitions of Vincent after shooting Marvin. For me, it's the character work, not the style. In fact, it says something about QT that all the things he loves bore me to death (b-movies, kung fu, blaxploitation), but I am consistently drawn in by his work, no matter how initially resistant I am (see Kill Bill, which I was not all excited about).
That being said, I don't like to use the word "genius" at all, because it means something different to everybody. But he's my number one, so what does that say?
fair enough, to all points given.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prolificacy
I swear, I searched it yesterday and couldn't find it - it kept asking, "do you mean prolific?" My apologies.
Post a Comment