The single greatest director of the past 10 years?

[Airwings]

I'm leaning more towards Nolan than Scorsese. But both are pretty much unbeatable.

Tarantino is probably third

 

[weezerspider]

How would you guys rank David O. Russel?

According to the oscars, he is top ten.

David O. Russell has the Robert Altman syndrome right now. He's so in love with the art of acting that he focuses 110% on directing his actors into these wonderful characters and wonderful performances while allowing things like cinematography, editing and plot to suffer because of it. He certainly has potential if he could balance his drive for directing actors with directing the other aspects of filmmaking. He's a good writer and a great actor director. Would he be in this conversation? Possibly. I can understand if someone brings him up, but I'm not quite sure I would, though for the most part, I enjoy his films. He's not quite the full package.

 

[scatterax]

You need buy yourself some criterion's ASAP!

I used to watch them when I had hulu plus.

 

[scatterax]

Addressing the bolded parts in turn

- Aren't you by your admission not qualified to make a judgement when you have only seen blockbuster films?

- I have absolutely no doubt that Haneke will always be regarded as the greater director, no question about it. Just compare their movies, they are simply not in the same category. Haneke is almost nonpareil today when it comes to directorial rigor and authority. And this might come as a patent surprise to you but Haneke has been nominated for a Best Director Oscar (for Amour) but Nolan still has never been nominated. Haneke's last two films have won the Palme D'Or at Cannes and he is by far one of the most important directors working today.

- Again, IMDB and fan lists would feature Nolan highly but for the most part, best directors of the past decade lists would yet be dominated by names like Wong Kar Wai, Haneke, Lars von Trier etc. For you to understand why they are placed higher - watch their films. You can't claim your guy is the best when you haven't even seen the competetion's films. Watch their films and then see how your man stacks up against those directors.

By the way, that site has a side bar where they exclusively evaluate movies of the recent past and has a seperate best director ranking for that section. Below are the rankings for that section.

1. Wong Kar-wai
2. David Lynch
3. Michael Haneke
4. Apichatpong Weerasethakul
5. Paul Thomas Anderson
6. Lars von Trier
7. Jia Zhangke
8. Béla Tarr
9. Ang Lee
10. Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
11. Hayao Miyazaki
12. Terrence Malick
13. Clint Eastwood
14. Steven Spielberg
15. Peter Jackson
16. Pedro Almodóvar
17. Wes Anderson
18. Aleksandr Sokurov
19. Richard Linklater
20. David Fincher

ALL these guys are also present in the Top 250 of all time list. Meaning these guys are good enough to be already in the running for the list of all time great directors. Nolan features very low if at all on either of these lists. Not saying that makes him a worse director, but just that perhaps watching movies from these other directors might change your perspective as to what cinema is and can be.

Cinema is most certainly not just blockbusters. That is but a small genre.

Um, that's a big assumption on your part. And it's wrong. I also enjoy movies like the Samurai trilogy, seven samurai, the kings Speech, Pi, one flew over the cuckoos nest, ect. While those older samurai movies might be considered epics or action flicks, I don't really know if they're blockbusters by western standards. All I'm saying is most small foreign films are hard to come by, so I haven't had a chance to watch a lot of the good ones, while in have had plenty to see the blockbuster ones.

I'm not dismissing smaller directors as being not great. Just not dismissing bigger directors for the mere reason that they are popular, like you seem to be doing with Nolan.And honestly your thinking that you have to be intimately familiar with foreign Indy directors to even have an opinion on directors you like is the most ignorant thing I've heard all week. Films are not just for film snobs. That's what more people need to realize. Film snobs ruin movies just as much as directors like Michael bay, and people who rate movies according to how much cgi they have. You guys are just the opposite extreme. Extremism is bad people. Extremely bad.

And on the oscar noms, how long had Haneke been directing before he got that nom? He's in a later stage and thus not compatible to Nolan in terms career achievements and recognition. That's like giving someone five minutes to paint the Mona Lisa and getting angry that it's not a perfect recreation.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Addressing the bolded parts in turn

- Aren't you by your admission not qualified to make a judgement when you have only seen blockbuster films?

- I have absolutely no doubt that Haneke will always be regarded as the greater director, no question about it. Just compare their movies, they are simply not in the same category. Haneke is almost nonpareil today when it comes to directorial rigor and authority. And this might come as a patent surprise to you but Haneke has been nominated for a Best Director Oscar (for Amour) but Nolan still has never been nominated. Haneke's last two films have won the Palme D'Or at Cannes and he is by far one of the most important directors working today.

- Again, IMDB and fan lists would feature Nolan highly but for the most part, best directors of the past decade lists would yet be dominated by names like Wong Kar Wai, Haneke, Lars von Trier etc. For you to understand why they are placed higher - watch their films. You can't claim your guy is the best when you haven't even seen the competetion's films. Watch their films and then see how your man stacks up against those directors.

By the way, that site has a side bar where they exclusively evaluate movies of the recent past and has a seperate best director ranking for that section. Below are the rankings for that section.

1. Wong Kar-wai
2. David Lynch
3. Michael Haneke
4. Apichatpong Weerasethakul
5. Paul Thomas Anderson
6. Lars von Trier
7. Jia Zhangke
8. Béla Tarr
9. Ang Lee
10. Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
11. Hayao Miyazaki
12. Terrence Malick
13. Clint Eastwood
14. Steven Spielberg
15. Peter Jackson
16. Pedro Almodóvar
17. Wes Anderson
18. Aleksandr Sokurov
19. Richard Linklater
20. David Fincher

ALL these guys are also present in the Top 250 of all time list. Meaning these guys are good enough to be already in the running for the list of all time great directors. Nolan features very low if at all on either of these lists. Not saying that makes him a worse director, but just that perhaps watching movies from these other directors might change your perspective as to what cinema is and can be.

Cinema is most certainly not just blockbusters. That is but a small genre.

What's with you and your obsession with posting lists from websites?

 

[MrMaooz]

I've loved Scorsese's work this past decade. The Departed, Shutter Island, Hugo, and The Wolf of Wall Street. All awesome. All of them are perfect in my eyes except for Hugo which was still amazing.

 

[gwynplaine]

edit

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

David O. Russell has the Robert Altman syndrome right now. He's so in love with the art of acting that he focuses 110% on directing his actors into these wonderful characters and wonderful performances while allowing things like cinematography, editing and plot to suffer because of it. He certainly has potential if he could balance his drive for directing actors with directing the other aspects of filmmaking. He's a good writer and a great actor director. Would he be in this conversation? Possibly. I can understand if someone brings him up, but I'm not quite sure I would, though for the most part, I enjoy his films. He's not quite the full package.

I'd have to agree. I like O'Russell and his movies, but like Nolan (though Nolan to a lesser extent than O'Russell), his movies leave a good amount to be desired for me.

 

[spider-neil]

For me;

My personal top 5 and their best movie of the last ten years (imho)

Director - Best movie last 10 years
1. Fincher - Social Network
2. QT - Inglorious Basterds
3. Coen - No Country
4. PTA - There will be blood
5. Nolan - The Prestige

 

[Tequilla]

Terrence Malick
Sion Sono

Its a toss between them.

in the us studio system , Nolan , and its not even close.

WKW or Lynch or Hayao or To would win if we were talking 00's.

What about decades ?

20-Keaton
30-Chaplin
40-hitchcock
50-Kurosawa
60-Melville
70-Kubrick
80-John Carpenter
90-Scorsese
00-WKW

This is much harder to do , but those were the names that popped up immediately.

 

[scatterax]

I've loved Scorsese's work this past decade. The Departed, Shutter Island, Hugo, and The Wolf of Wall Street. All awesome. All of them are perfect in my eyes except for Hugo which was still amazing.

Didn't he do Aviator in 2004?

 

[MrMaooz]

Didn't he do Aviator in 2004?

I've never seen it.

 

[-Arya-]

Quentin Tarantino is also a solid choice. Loved Inglorious Basterd's and Django.

 

[scatterax]

Quentin Tarantino is also a solid choice. Loved Inglorious Basterd's and Django.

Agreed. And kill bill part 2 was 2004 I think, so it's counted.

 

[DA_Champion]

David O. Russell has the Robert Altman syndrome right now. He's so in love with the art of acting that he focuses 110% on directing his actors into these wonderful characters and wonderful performances while allowing things like cinematography, editing and plot to suffer because of it. He certainly has potential if he could balance his drive for directing actors with directing the other aspects of filmmaking. He's a good writer and a great actor director. Would he be in this conversation? Possibly. I can understand if someone brings him up, but I'm not quite sure I would, though for the most part, I enjoy his films. He's not quite the full package.

That description fits really well.

I was very offended by the script problems in Silver Linings. Really nonsensical plot.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Terrence Malick
Sion Sono

Its a toss between them.

in the us studio system , Nolan , and its not even close.

WKW or Lynch or Hayao or To would win if we were talking 00's.

What about decades ?

20-Keaton
30-Chaplin
40-hitchcock
50-Kurosawa
60-Melville
70-Kubrick
80-John Carpenter
90-Scorsese
00-WKW

This is much harder to do , but those were the names that popped up immediately.

These are the names that immediately came to mind when thinking of these decades.

20s - Can't do. I'm not familiar enough with the silent era.
30s - Fleming
40s - Welles
50s - Kurosawa
60s - Lean
70s - Coppola
80s - Spielberg
90s - Tarantino
00s - Nolan

 

[childeroland]

20s - Lang
30s - Fleming
40s - Hitchcock
50s - Ozu or Kurosawa
60s - Kubrick
70s - Coppola
80s - Miyazaki
90s - Kieslowski
00s - Wong Kar-Wai

 

[weezerspider]

That description fits really well.

I was very offended by the script problems in Silver Linings. Really nonsensical plot.

In his defense on that, most of the cheesy plot points in Silver Linings are straight from the book. I'm not entirely sure he'd do something like that straight from his head. Silver Linings has some great performances and some great scenes, but yeah, the plot is pretty meh and comes together at the end really awfully.

 

[scatterax]

These are the names that immediately came to mind when thinking of these decades.

20s - Can't do. I'm not familiar enough with the silent era.
30s - Fleming
40s - Welles
50s - Kurosawa
60s - Lean
70s - Coppola
80s - Spielberg
90s - Tarantino
00s - Nolan

Agree with 70s on. I'd say either Kubrick or Hitchcock for the 60s. While I've seen my fair share of b&w movies I'm not too familiar with who directed what 50s and back. Welles began this idea in western cinema that the director should have creative control, but that didn't start becoming the norm like it is today until Kubrick. I'd from the start of the sound era to about the late 50s early 60s the writer was the most important creative element, while silent era it was the cinematographer.

 

[Tequilla]

Yeah 60's Kubrick was a problem. He made 2001 and Dr , so he had every right to be there. But i didnt want to repeat names , so he also fits well in the 70's .

50's is the easiest. Seven Samurai , Rashomon , Throne of Blood , Hidden Fortress.

 

[weezerspider]

Terrence Malick
Sion Sono

Its a toss between them.

in the us studio system , Nolan , and its not even close.

WKW or Lynch or Hayao or To would win if we were talking 00's.

What about decades ?

20-Keaton
30-Chaplin
40-hitchcock
50-Kurosawa
60-Melville
70-Kubrick
80-John Carpenter
90-Scorsese
00-WKW

This is much harder to do , but those were the names that popped up immediately.

20's-Keaton
30's-Chaplin
40's-Huston
50's-Kazan
60's-Kubrick
70's-Coppla/Scorsese
80's-Spielberg/Scorsese
90's-Tarantino/PTA
00's-PTA

Damn. That's hard.

 

[The Endless]

I feel Leone deserves a mention for the 60s. Dollars Trilogy and of course, Once Upon a Time in the West.

 

[weezerspider]

I feel Leone deserves a mention for the 60s. Dollars Trilogy and of course, Once Upon a Time in the West.

Yeah that's a good point.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I feel Leone deserves a mention for the 60s. Dollars Trilogy and of course, Once Upon a Time in the West.

Agreed.

 

[scatterax]

The 70s might have been the best time for movies come to think of it. Kubrick, Capolla, Scorsese, with Spielberg and star wars near the end. Hmmm. It would have been interesting to live through all that and watch the movies before they were considered classics.