As I said before, I will leave no opinions about Hitchcock as this thread could turn into something of a war.
-
vintagevalor-2 — 15 years ago(March 31, 2011 03:28 PM)
Having read all of the posts here I must jump in and add my 2 cents worth. In the opinion of Wells himself, John Ford was the best director of their day. And maybe that is where this discussion should be placed, "best direcrtor of their day" As both Wells and Ford are gone, along with most of the rest of the fine directors mentioned in these postings, Kurisawa, hawks, Hitchcock, there can be no "Best Director of alltime" Time ain't finished yet! However, placed in the context of the times in which these fine gentleman lived, I vote for Ford, followed by Wells and then Hitchcock and then the rest in any order one chooses.
Most of Fords films are timeless, SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON, FORT APACHE, THE QUIET MAN, THE SEARCHERS, HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY, even his lesser pictures hold up today. Collectively they are some ofthe best films ever made.
Wells contribution is CITIZEN KANE and TOUCH OF EVIL, in my opinion. Two great movies. I do not think his films in which hewas only an Actor can be considered As fine a film as THE THIRD MAN is, it's Reeds picture, not Wells. -
eternalhennessy — 12 years ago(August 18, 2013 10:39 PM)
"Hugo" may have been a visual marvel but it's a simplistic, trite, bad film sorry. And "The Departed" was wildly uneven with every cast member doing their own thing rather than having them mesh cohesively. Jack Nicholson's ultra hambone overrated performance in it is unintentionally humorous rather than the expected menacing figure he was meant to be. "Gangs of New York" was also more tilting on the bad side with inconsistent performances again (Daniel Day Lewis' wildly overdone performance & Cameron Diaz as a remarkably modern, shiny clean 1800's prostie). "Shutter Island" was like a lavishly laid out expensive pseudo B film that has a very predictable & silly plot.
It seems more often than not good actors & directors fade as do good athletes as the years pass. And at least the athletes retire though when they lose it. Hollywood not so much. But Scorsese's beginnings were fantastic. -
metalman091 — 12 years ago(November 01, 2013 12:12 AM)
The fact that Orson Welles made CITIZEN KANE, one of the most influential films of all time, is good enough to place him as one of the greatest directors of all time. I won't name names, but he makes some of these other directors look like amateurs.
-
packers56789 — 11 years ago(May 12, 2014 12:17 PM)
I started this thread over five years ago and still stand by my original statement. Perhaps the tone was a bit harsh (especially the subject headline). There are probably ten to fifteen directors who I would be okay with as the best of all time. Welles is not one of them. Its not that I dislike Welles, and perhaps he does belong on the list of top ten directors. It just seems (and others on this thread have expressed similar views) that he was more talented than accomplished. Here are those ten to fifteen directors who have better bodies of works. Hitchcock, Ford, Kurosawa, Bergman, Wyler, Wilder, Hawks, Fellini, Kubrick, Lean, Spielberg, Scorcese, and even Coppola's 70s work (all four were masterpieces). I think that even Kazan, Woody Allen, Capra, John Huston, Cukor, Preston Sturges, and Truffaut could be considered great filmmakers as well. I don't want to hear that Welles could't work within Hollyood's restrictive system, or that he had such trouble financing his later films. I know that. Frankly, it does not matter all that much. I saw what talent he had with Citizen Kane, and after that he never came close. Take away Kane, and it seriously diminishes his legacy. Take away the best film for any other director I named, and it does not come close to doing the same. I'd love to hear more responses, whether you agree or not.
-
jacabiya — 10 years ago(May 09, 2015 09:20 AM)
Hey, excellent thread! It took me, what, 6 years, to catch up with it, but here I am with my 2 cents. I had the same exact initial reaction when I saw the BFI poll. I later concluded that the reason Welles was selected best director ever was because of the quality of the direction that can be appreciated on the screen, regardless of the end result of the pictures as a whole, with far less great films because of reasons other than Welles' direction (Eisenstein is another director who made too few movies). That is, the best of Welles is considered better than the best of any other director. At their best, Wilder, Ford, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Bergman, Renoir, Chaplin, Fellini, Tarkovsky, Rossellini, Copolla and early Scorsese can not touch Welles working on all cylinders, if you know what I mean. Kubrick I'm not so sure: he may be up there with Welles. Hitchcock also, but maybe strictly with Vertigo. The problem I have with Welles' later films is that his direction, which includes sound and photography, requires very high production resources and control, which he had in his first 2 films and probably in Touch of Evil, but not in any other film. By contrast, Kubrick after Spartacus always had complete control, unlimited resources and final cut.
I'm still in the process of fully appreciating Welles, and given that his films are been shown this month at TCM - including the elusive Chimes at Midnight - I should be able to make a more intelligent opinion. But at this moment, for me Citizen Kane, Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil and The Trial are unmitigated masterpieces. Other films I find wildly uneven for reasons Welles can not blame anyone but himself, with Journey into Fear and Lady from Shanghai as examples (notwithstanding the funhouse scene cuts). In these two films Welles gives performances that put me off. The Stranger I've never cared for, but Othello I believe is a great film. Macbeth and F for Fake I have not seen. Mr. Arkadin I'm currently re-watching. And of course, Chimes at Midnight I'm looking forward to see again next week in my big-screen TV (I saw it once in my PC).
I also believe Vertigo, while a great film, should still be ranked second next to CK. 2001 is a film seemingly made with extra-terrestrial intervention, but The Shining is still my favorite Kubrick film. And Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West is another film that blows my mind. -
redrawn — 13 years ago(December 17, 2012 01:12 PM)
He made at least ten movies, of which at least two are absolute classics in my opinion. Is that not enough to qualify as a great director? Each of his films make use of great acting, camera angles, and composition. His innovations in cinematography and storytelling are still compelling, and his movies have much to teach us.
I'm slowly reviewing each of his films, and each one so far has been a smartly produced, creative piece of work. -
Balthazar-5 — 13 years ago(January 15, 2013 04:13 PM)
The logic is very simple. At a level of cinematic expression,
Citizen Kane
is very considerably more rich and complex than even the best works by any of the other directors you mention. If you doubt that, read
Rosebud
by David Thompson which starts with an analysis of the opening sequence of
Kane
.
Welles himself regarded John Ford as the master of directing, but while Ford had the poet's eye that is also characteristic of Welles (and Hitchcock for that matter), his (Ford's), very extensive, work is littered with films based on weak scripts which are much inferior to the worst of Welles' films. Also, and this is where Welles got into trouble, he insisted on supervising the editing of his films while Ford rarely had anything to do with that aspect of the production and he relied on a very spare attitude to shooting to ensure that nothing that he didn't want was included in the final work. That is why Franois Truffaut remarked that no director other than Welles 'made films the way composers wrote music'.
And though
The Stranger
is not great Welles, it is a greater work than - for example
Topaze
. In art, one assesses the artist much more by the apogee of their work than any kind of median. Mozart is lauded for his mature symphonies and his operas, not criticised for his early minuets
I know many filmmakers and they nearly5b4 all have works that they wish they hadn't made - that didn't reflect well on them, perhaps through no fault of their own.
'Wisdom would be to see life, really see, that would be wisdom.' JLG. -
JoeyJoeyJoey — 11 years ago(November 21, 2014 08:18 AM)
honestly, orson welles is top 3 ever. he really changed the history of cinema.
-citizen kane
-the magnificent ambersons
-the lady from shanghai
these three films are required study and must be seen over and over and over. -
kscha — 11 years ago(March 29, 2015 09:33 AM)
I don't hate Orson Welles, I actually think he was a good looking guy in his younger days, not the best but a decent actor, and when speaking of his technically quality, yes, he is among the best in that regards. But the best of any director then or now? No. I don't think there is a best. The entertainment factor just isn't there for me when it comes to Welles. On the other hand, I feel like Hitchcock's movies, even some of his earliest, have it all. It doesn't matter if it was 2 or 20 movies that are good, just Psycho alone is one of the best. Then there is Chaplin, Wilder, Brooks, Lucas, Kubrick..the list goes on and on. There is no best, because it depends on what best means to a person. Hitchcock is one of my favorites, but even he wasn't perfect he wasn't very versatile, he stuck with thrillers and he was good at that, but he made many, many, many, well known and good films. Lucas made Star Wars and changed movie making. Kubrick was versatile. Chaplin started it all practically.
So, I just don't agree with arguing over something as vague as "best" director. They all made their mark. One man's trash is another man's treasure, anyway. -
starrynight05 — 10 years ago(May 05, 2015 05:48 AM)
Okay, firstly, you just listed nothing but English-language directors. If you are discussing the greatest English-language director ever, then that's fine. However, when you say "best director ever", you have to take into account Bergman, Fellini, Rossellini, Visconti, Pasolini, Antonioni, De Sica, Godard, Truffaut, Rohmer, Chabrol, Varda, Marker, Resnais, Malle, Melville, Renoir, Carn, Cocteau, Ozu, Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, Teshigahara, Imamura, Buuel, Jodorowsky, Tarkovsky, Eisenstein, Dreyer, Lang, Murn5b4au, Pabst, Fassbinder, Herzog, Schlndorff, Satyajit Ray, and so many others, almost all of whom are far greater directors than Alfred Hitchcock, Billy Wilder, John Ford, David Lean, or Howard Hawks (all of whom I have the utmost respect for legitimately great filmmakers). If you choose not to watch films that aren't in English, well, that's unfortunate, but it is your prerogative. Please do not, however, presume to discuss the greatest filmmaker of all-time if you've closed yourself off to over 90% of the greatest films ever made.
With that out of the way, if we are discussing the greatest English-language filmmakers, I have always agreed that Orson Welles is a bit overrated, as is "Citizen Kane". I think "Citizen Kane" is a very good film, and I think Orson Welles is a very good filmmaker. He had highly cultivated tastes in the arts, and as a result, he brought a somewhat European sensibility to American films that proved a highly influential aspect of the evolution of our country's cinema. He utilized an expressionistic cinematography borrowed from the Germans in the '20s and early '30s (before National Socialism derailed German cinema), and also from certain facets of French poetic realism in the late '30s, namely Marcel Carn. He was a master with the camera. He weaved compelling narratives that were enjoyable for a wide range of audiences while simultaneously applying a more artistic aesthetic than almost any of his 1c84contemporaries were doing. So my respect for Welles is immense. That being said, he didn't make very many truly great films. To this day, I can't understand all the hype about "Citizen Kane". I respect it as a high quality film, which it undoubtedly is, but a masterpiece? The greatest American film ever made? Sounds very over-the-top to me. It's a very well-shot film and a quality narrative with some good themes, but by comparison to Renoir's "The Lower Depths" or "Grand Illusion", Carn's "Port of Shadows" or "Daybreak", Lang's "Destiny" or "Die Nibelungen" or "Metropolis" or "M", Dreyer's "The President" or "The Passion of Joan of Arc", Sjstrm's "The Phantom Carriage", MacPherson's "Borderline", Murnau's "Faust" or "Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans" all films from the '20s and '30s that are significantly better than "Citizen Kane", both formally and thematically. And this is how I feel about Welles in general. A high quality filmmaker, deserving of much respect, but not quite on par with the greatness that is often attributed to him. In my opinion, his best film is without a doubt "F for Fake", which is infinitely more innovative, complex, and profound than "Citizen Kane". It simply lacks the mass appeal of the latter, and it requires thought and analysis to appreciate, which is something, especially in America, audiences have always resisted.
The greatest English-language filmmakers, to me, would be John Cassavetes and Stanley Kubrick. There's plenty of other greats Michael Powell (and Emeric Pressburger), David Lynch, Alfred Hitchcock, David Lean, Robert Altman, and, of course, D.W. Griffith is undoubtedly the most influential American filmmaker to ever live. Not the best by any means, but certainly the most influential. But to me Cassavetes and Kubrick are another level. Cassavetes is one of the few American directors who was able to achieve the level of intelligence and authorial uniqueness that other countries' filmmakers achieved. America's gift has always been superficial entertainment. Truly profound, artistic cinema has never been our strength. Cassavetes is probably the only true exception in the history of popular American cinema (obviously in the underground world you have the likes of Brakhage and Frampton, et cetera). And Kubrick, while not as artistically gifted as Cassavetes, was a uniquely innovative and marvelous filmmaker. -
makaroney — 10 years ago(September 01, 2015 04:26 AM)
There's so many more masters of cinema: Wenders, Shinoda, Kinoshita, Keaton, Rivette, Eustache, Bertolucci, Risi, Wajda, Kieslowski, Zanussi, Munk, Oshima, Costa-Gavras, Haneke, Rene Clair, Ichikawa, Kiarostami, Wong Kar-wai, Kobayashi, Zhang Yimou, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Jancso, Kusturica, Raoul Ruiz, Verhoeven(underrated auteur, holland films especially), Cronenberg and many more
There is no such thing as "greatest ever". -
adamwarlock — 9 years ago(September 02, 2016 06:16 AM)
I would agree. He might have been if he had got the box office Kane deserved and got to make what he wanted rather than try ambitious projects on shoe strings and fall short.
if man is 5
then the devil is 6
if the devil is 6
then God is 7
and if God is 7 -
chopper-9 — 9 years ago(September 12, 2016 03:45 PM)
If your argument against Welles being the best is lack of productivity then you can scratch Kubrick off the list immediately. I 5b4think that Welles is one of the greatest but I would base this on quality rather than quantity. Citizen Kane, The Trial, Touch of Evil, The Magnificent Ambersons, Othello, Three Cases of Murder, Confidential Report and F For Fake are all fantastic movies. He also has more than 100 acting credits. It's a rarity to find a Director who is prolific and consistent. Hitchcock, as you've mentioned, made some of the greatest movies of all time. As did Akira Kurasawa. David Lean is my all time favourite Director and he only made 16 movies.
"Never eat yellow snow" -
adamwarlock — 9 years ago(September 18, 2016 06:05 AM)
Kubrick took his time to make each film of high quality so his lack of productivity is made up for. Wells made some sloppy, low bu5b4dget films that were beyond his ambitions. Still made some great stuff and we've got all his acting work and radio too so quite the career.
if man is 5
then the devil is 6
if the devil is 6
then God is 7
and if God is 7