Best Director Ever? Give Me A Break!
-
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. -
baprice14 — 16 years ago(November 21, 2009 06:28 PM)
I love Welles and Hitchcock (though I seldom like the end of any of Hitchcock's films). I can't understand why anyone wouldn't at least consider Welles in the top 5. Love Kubrick too. But honestly, if a "best director ever" tag is going to be awarded, it would probably have to go to a foreign director. Bergman, Bresson, Antonioni, Fellini, Kurosawa, Fassbinder, Herzog, Renoir, etc. Especially if there is some requirement to have not only good films, but lots of them (in which case my vote would go to Bergman).
And though they might not have been around early enough to invent the "cinematic vocabulary," my vote goes to the Coen brothers. If you can exclude The Ladykillers, everyone of their films has been very good at the least, and many of them (Barton Fink, Miller's Crossing, Raising Arizona, Fargo, No Country for old Men, The Big Lebowski, O Brother, Where Art Though) have been phenomenal.
Tendrils of Obfuscation -
classicfilmfan81 — 16 years ago(November 22, 2009 09:26 PM)
I believe what Orson Welles said in his book interview with Peter Bogdanovich rings true and that is to be considered good one does not need to make many films, but can only make one great film. He didn't only make one great film, movies like Lady from Shanghai and Touch of Evil were superb, but Citizen Kane stood above everything. Kane was Orson's great film and I believe that is why many consider him a great director.
-
JohnWelles — 16 years ago(December 09, 2009 05:39 AM)
It's a hard one Some people say Welles just because of "Citizen Kane" (I used to), and Kane is my favorite film, but when you say he is the greatest, you suddenly remember people like Huston, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Lang, Hawks, Lean, Bergman It's difficult, because unlike a film, what criteria do you base your judgement on? Do you go for exceptional quality (Welles, Lean, Kubrick) from people who made few films or directors who made lots of
excellent
movies (Hawks, Hitchcock, Huston)? In the end, I think you should just list your ten favorites in no order because if you list one person as number oe, aren't you snuffing other great directors who are possibly on a par? -
teamgomez99 — 15 years ago(November 14, 2010 09:42 AM)
This is stupidly subjective and just filled with other morons like me shouting Directors names. I agree with the one dude above me, BEST OF ALL TIME would be a foreign director like Bergman, Kurosawa, Herzog etc (YES HERZOG!!!), not Godard, for anyone who actually studies films and doesn't just name drop knows his influence is extremely greater than his work for the most part. Out of American directors, Orson Welles is one of the greatest. And Kubrick IS OVER RATED. Everyone is too b68quick to shout "Masterpeice!" My favorite film by him is actually Lolita, which is never mentioned, because it lacks ridiculous, extreme David Lynch ish camer work!!! (I do like Lynch, usually). His later films became incredibly indulgent and dare I say, but Kubrick is pretentious, and b4 you say he isn't, look up the definition for PRETENTIOUS. However, this tread is on Welles. If you say "He isn't the best because he only made blah blah blah" then you shouldn't be saying anything, because I have seen 6 or 7 Welles films and everyone was absolutely amazing. Don't get me going on Scorsese. He isn't even the best of the New Hollywood. Coppola blantantly made better pictures early on, and he never became a true auteur like Depalma (I love mostly everything by DePalma until 1996 and after, all that beep is beep Scorsese is very mainstream, and puts no where near the amount of perfection, ambition, and general uniqueness that Orson Welles did. So if you disagree with me, go back to film school, u hobo!
H.W.