Best Director Ever? Give Me A Break!
-
grampashab — 16 years ago(April 22, 2009 10:43 AM)
" Unfair, I know, but I judge by actual films instead of potential."
I can dig that. Hitchcock and Kubrick ARE pretty stiff competition anyway, but I don't think they quite touched Touch of Evil. I do, howev7ecer, consider 2001, Dr. Strangelove and Psycho (on a good day) a tad better than Citizen Kane, however.
Badges? We don't need no stinking badges! -
cult_classics — 16 years ago(May 04, 2009 04:06 PM)
"Apparently, packers56789 hasn't heard of "Othello", "Chimes at Midnight", "The Trial", "Touch of Evil", "Macbeth", "F for Fake", or "The Lady From Shanghai"."
Or Mr. Arkadin, which in my book is Welles best film. I'd put many of those directors in the top 5, but Welles was streets ahead imo. His ever enduring sense of idealism is right up with Kubrick and Gilliam, even though without him we likely wouldn't have had them either.
"Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating." -
grampashab — 16 years ago(April 22, 2009 10:41 AM)
If you can't see the mark of genius that separates Orson's best from everyone else (other makers of English-speaking film anyway) then frankly you're not alone. His incredible legacy doesn't catch everyone the same way, people tend to want to look at it in terms of quantity and so on, and they're welcome to. To me, it's not about how many great films, but about exactly how great the films are. He probably can't be called the greatest director uncontroversially (can anyone?) but he's as good a choice as anyone else. I do think he had more TALENT than any of the other guys you've listed, whatever that means.
Badges? We don't need no stinking badges! -
Balthazar-5 — 11 years ago(September 19, 2014 07:57 AM)
Truffaut had an expression about Welles to the effect that he was the only director who made films like composers compose music. This was, IMHO, because he was the director who understood exactly what magic can be achieved in the cutting room at a level of constructive montage that was, sometimes, breathtaking as it is in large sections of Terrence Malick's recent films. The same was true of Stan Brakhage at his best, but he rarely gave the impression that he was really in control of his work.
The battle of Shrewsbury sequence in
Chimes at Midnight
is possibly the clearest example of Welles demonstrating his mastery. There are spectacular shot-to-shot transformations in
Citizen Kane
, also.
Keep watching the masterpieces. -
studioboy69 — 16 years ago(June 05, 2009 04:30 PM)
I agree. He is not even close to the Best Director He seems to be a man's man so to speak.. meaning a certain breed of guys that like old classics for some reason tend to like him. To me he always came off as egotistical even in his directing efforts. ALFRED HITCHCOCK is by far the greatest director of all time anyone that states or claims different or at least when compared with Welles, is stretching more than a bit.
I do disagree with one thing in packers post Citizen Kane is totally of the "love it, hate it" lot when this happens for some reason I usually end up sitting on the fence. Citizen Kane was not an all around "fantastic" film.. it is in fact very boring. It is very well made and very attractive. but no matter how much one loves "talky" pictures- the story is just not that compelling. It seems to have gained a lot of credit from one single story surprise "rosebud". however, it's not enough to make it through the film in one sitting without dozing off a time or two. What I always remember is how- Agnes Moorehead was wasted thats probably why she ended up giving a bigger performance in "The Magnificent Ambersons". Go figure.
Anyways yeah Alfred Hitchcock.. hands down. No and's, if's or but's about it. Sorry Welles fans. -
grampashab — 16 years ago(June 10, 2009 11:47 AM)
"Anyways yeah Alfred Hitchcock.. hands down. No and's, if's or but's about it. Sorry Welles fans."
Not quite.
By your very own (questionable) criteria, why are Renoir, Bresson, Ford, Clouzot and Kurosawa out of the running?
And that's some useless critique of Welles in my book.
Badges? We don't need no stinking badges! -
LukeLovesFilm28 — 11 years ago(March 23, 2015 09:28 AM)
"Citizen Kane is totally of the 'love it, hate it' lot when this happens for some reason I usually end up sitting on the fence. Citizen Kane was not an all around 'fantastic' film.. it is in fact very boring. It is very well made and very attractive. but no matter how much one loves "talky" pictures- the story is just not that compelling."
Those are some strong and dare I say, very ignorant words. You talk like a fan of Transformers trying to find brilliance in Terminator 2: Judgment Day. It's really sad. -
shadgrindk — 16 years ago(July 23, 2009 09:14 PM)
If there was only one man in the history of cinema directors who deserves the attached title of 'GENIUS' to his name and reputation, it's Welles.
He truly invented a number of cinematic elements first used in Citizen Kane and other films of his, and Othello has the ultimate combination of cinematography, editing, music, set design and the union of all elements into a medievil Shakespearean masterpiece. There were many other films that add to his reputation. He's not necessarily the greatest, but he was the most innovative of all filmmakers. -
eduardoyoung21 — 16 years ago(September 24, 2009 10:47 PM)
As far as i know he's the greatest director. Just watch his film noirs (the stranger, lady from shanghai, mr arkadin and touch of evil) and his shakespeare adaptations (macbeth, othello and chimes at midnight) and you'll see what i'm talking about. Hell, even the trial is great in its own strange way.
"The only way to stay out of trouble is to grow old, so I guess I'll concentrate on that". -
CULTEGUY — 16 years ago(October 08, 2009 03:44 PM)
Such a subjective topic that these 238so-called-experts are no more than you or me. People forget that Kubrick only made a hand full of films. Most were great, some were good, and some weren't all that good at all (two of which I've never seen.)
Eastwood (whom Welles gave props to early on in his directing field) has probably been more successful as an actor-turned-director than anyone. For me, John Cassavetes should take credit as the best, but many would disagree and that's fine. But, I'm not sure a lot of people would disagree that Welles was the first actor-turned-director, and the ear5b4liest in his career, to turn out one of the best movies ever made.
It probably should have gone to Hitchcock, as you were saying. Very seldom did the Hitch stray from a particular genre. I mean, as much as I like all the directors' films you'd mentioned, Hitch was always trying something without switching, and killed most of the time. "Psycho" still kills me. People don't mention it created the 'slasher' genre, but the shower scene was by definition what the genre means.
The opening of "Touch Of Evil" still makes Welles dang good though. Even in that, the 'one shot' method had been done by Hitchcock, but it'd never been incorperated until then. Plus, I dig Marlene Dietrich in that film.