Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Film Glance Forum

  1. Home
  2. The IMDb Archives
  3. As I said before, I will leave no opinions about Hitchcock as this thread could turn into something of a war.

As I said before, I will leave no opinions about Hitchcock as this thread could turn into something of a war.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The IMDb Archives
44 Posts 1 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    fgadmin
    wrote on last edited by
    #35

    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.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • F Offline
      F Offline
      fgadmin
      wrote on last edited by
      #36

      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.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • F Offline
        F Offline
        fgadmin
        wrote on last edited by
        #37

        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.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • F Offline
          F Offline
          fgadmin
          wrote on last edited by
          #38

          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".

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • F Offline
            F Offline
            fgadmin
            wrote on last edited by
            #39

            jefgg — 10 years ago(August 31, 2015 04:35 PM)

            This post got me thinking. Welles and Kubrick were great directors, but were not consistent. What great director was the most consistent? That might be Hitchcock and Scorsese.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • F Offline
              F Offline
              fgadmin
              wrote on last edited by
              #40

              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

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • F Offline
                F Offline
                fgadmin
                wrote on last edited by
                #41

                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"

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • F Offline
                  F Offline
                  fgadmin
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #42

                  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

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • F Offline
                    F Offline
                    fgadmin
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #43

                    chopper-9 — 9 years ago(September 20, 2016 12:04 PM)

                    Sergio Leone only made seven movies. Yet he defined a genre. I think that Welles also had some extremely bad luck and difficulty with financing his work due to his bad reputation.
                    "Never eat yellow snow"

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • F Offline
                      F Offline
                      fgadmin
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #44

                      metalman091 — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 12:58 AM)

                      Well, I'd rather give it to Welles than to John Ford. I never understood why Ford was really considered all that great. I enjoyed CITIZEN KANE more than most of Ford's movies.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0

                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • Users
                      • Groups