Who is the GREATEST DIRECTOR of ALL TIME??

[MICKEYMOUSE]

Walt Disney
Francis Coppola
Sergio Leone
George Lucas
Steven Spielberg
Martin Scorsese
None of the Above (someone not on this list above)

*If your director of your choice is not here, post it.

[Lazario]

I would have to say Federico Fellini, he's not on that list.

[2099net]

David Lynch. Without a doubt.

[Lazario]

David Lynch is SO(!!!!!) overrated!

[2099net]

David Lynch is SO(!!!!!) overrated!

Never!

There's no director alive today who composes their shots with as much care and attention. Considering Lynch never (or hardly ever) uses computer enhancement, some of his compositions and use of colour is astonishing. Almost every film frame can be blown up and hung on a wall and wouldn't look out of place in a gallery. Look for balance, color, contrast, lighting and reflections. All are present in some aspect in most of his shots.

While you may not like his films, don't underestimate his direction.

[Lazario]

You can argue composition all you want to, but the man hasn't learned a THING about quality writing or acting. Lost Highway is a DISASTER as a film. Eraserhead is nothing more than a freakshow, a wannabe Freaks (the 30's Tod Browning picture) for the 1970s. Wild At Heart is one of the worst films I've ever seen. And Blue Velvet is a cult piece of trash. To take any of these films seriously is a crime against good filmmaking.

And David Lynch is the most OVERRATED director I can think of.

[2099net]

You can argue composition all you want to, but the man hasn't learned a THING about quality writing or acting. Lost Highway is a DISASTER as a film. Eraserhead is nothing more than a freakshow, a wannabe Freaks (the 30's Tod Browning picture) for the 1970s. Wild At Heart is one of the worst films I've ever seen. And Blue Velvet is a cult piece of trash. To take any of these films seriously is a crime against good filmmaking.

And David Lynch is the most OVERRATED director I can think of.

It's best Director. Not writer. Plus, I still place Lynch's ability to direct actors leaps ahead of Lucas'. I don't actually see anything wrong with Lynch's actors. They are, after all, playing parts in a representation of "hyper-reality", not attempting to duplicate "reality". (Apart from The Straight Story or The Elephant Man, of course, in which the lead actors were nominated for an Oscar®).

[Lazario]

It's best Director. Not writer.

I'm judging him based on film quality. How about you? The acting and writing quality of his films are generally bottom-barrell. He may know a few things about composition, but most of his movies still suck.

I can almost see what you're saying. But, a good director has to strike a good film from a GOOD screenplay/script. And also has to be able to work with actors. This man can do neither of those things. He LUCKED OUT with Elephant Man and Mulholland Drive.

[2099net]

It's best Director. Not writer.

I'm judging him based on film quality. How about you? The acting and writing quality of his films are generally bottom-barrell. He may know a few things about composition, but most of his movies still suck.

I can almost see what you're saying. But, a good director has to strike a good film from a GOOD screenplay/script. And also has to be able to work with actors. This man can do neither of those things. He LUCKED OUT with Elephant Man and Mulholland Drive.

I'm basing it on transferring his "vision" to the screen. Like I say, you may not like some/all of his films, but you cannot deny that they are his vision. He is making art.

With most director's you don't get a sense of individual style. I know these aren't on the list, so aren't considered "great" but what did Chris Columbus bring to the first two Harry Potter films or his Home Alone films? What did Stephen Sommers bring to The Mummy films or Van Helsing (apart from overuse of CGI)? What does any director bring to most films these days? Even the independents are getting more and more uniform in style and feel.

Most directors these days are interchangable - their vision is repressed because studio's don't want to "rock the boat" and produce something that may alienate an audience. I'm happy to say Sony seems to be the exeption to this rule with their Spider-Man films and Rami. So props to Sony.

[Lazario]

I don't care about Stephen Sommers or Chris Columbus. You didn't see me say anything about them for that very reason. And in case you may have forgotten, Ed Wood had a vision but he is still regarded as one of the worst filmmakers in all of filmmaking. So your point truly is lost. Vision has so very little to do with 'great' filmmaking. And David Lynch is an overrated fluke.

[2099net]

I don't care about Stephen Sommers or Chris Columbus. You didn't see me say anything about them for that very reason. And in case you may have forgotten, Ed Wood had a vision but he is still regarded as one of the worst filmmakers in all of filmmaking. So your point truly is lost. Vision has so very little to do with 'great' filmmaking. And David Lynch is an overrated fluke.

Vision has everything to do with filmmaking. Filmmaking is art, and one of the definitions of art is creating a physical representation of an artist's inner vision.

I never said you did like Sommers or Columbus. I was pointing out that many directors (I chose Columbus and Sommers as they are famous without being "great") have no or little vision of their own. Lynch is all about his own personal vision. And he copies his vision to screen.

I doubt Ed Wood would claim his "vision" was transferred to film. He may of had a "vision", but all-in-all, especially during his later years, he was a jobbing filmmaker struggling with finances. In all honestly, I doubt he would state any of his films reflected what was in his imagination.

You know, many modern artists face the same problem you seem to have with Lynch. They have visions that they realise, but because people don't like the result, they dismiss the art. Which is wrong. Art doesn't have to be realistic.

What about Picasso? Is his work overrated? Or Monet? Both of these whet for non-realism.

Like I say, considering most of Lynch's work is done without extensive effects, especially constructed sets or props, it's amazing how unrealistic or "hyper-real" some of his films are. The bulk of Lynch's films are about symbolism, illusions and dream/nightmare influenced images and concepts. Something he does undeniabliy well, and often on a tight budget.

I'll finish with a quite from Wikipedia on Art

There is wide disagreement over what constitutes art, and there is no single definition that is widely agreed upon. A common view is that art requires a creative and unique perception of both the artist and audience. For example, a common contemporary criticism of some modern painting might be, 'my five-year old could have painted that' — implying that the work is somehow less worthy of the title art, either because the viewer fails to find meaning in the work, or because the work does not appear to have required any skill to produce. This view is often described as a lay critique and derives from the fact that in Western culture at least, art has traditionally been pushed in the direction of representationalism, the literal presentation of reality through literal images.

[Lazario]

You keep going on and on about the art direction, but that's not all there is to making good films. Lynch is NO Picasso or Monet. You can keep praising his art direction till you're blue in the face, but film is WAY more than just art direction. And in nearly all those other departments and facets, Lynch is a void.

Film is one kind of art, but you can't judge it by the same rules as painting or sculpting. Besides, this is a metaphor you seem only ready to use to defend the work of this particular hack. This isn't about me disliking the result. Like I've mentioned before- Lost Highway, Blue Velvet, Eraserhead, and Wild at Heart are nothing more than gaudy, overblown, heavy-handed, underground cult freakshows. Art doesn't mean the thing one person sees it as to everyone else. BUT it is undeniable that Lynch does not pay attention to most details involved in filmmaking. Just the look and sound of his movies. There is more to movies than how they affect the viewer.

People watching films have to have more initiative to actually WATCH the film than simply art direction! If you don't agree, and you continue to say I don't get it, than you are sorrily mistaken. No one director is immune from criticism because his films have ambitious art elements to them. Directors have responsibilities as storytellers as well as art displayers.

[Disney-Fan]

David Lynch is SO(!!!!!) overrated!

Ditto!
I'd say Steven Spielberg! I love almost all of his movies! I'll definetly see War of the Worlds!

[Lazario]

Ditto!
I'd say Steven Spielberg! I love almost all of his movies! I'll definetly see War of the Worlds!

Thank you for agreeing with me. It's refreshing to see someone else have a brain. But on the Spielberg note, I really wish he could make another people movie, only without Tom Hanks this time.

[Disney-Fan]

No problem! I've tried to watch a LOT of his movies, but they all seemed so overrated, dull and to be frank, boring to me. Also, most times I can hardly tell what's going on! What's the point in watching a movie if half the time you're thinking about what happened in the last scene? His movies are poorly done in my opinion, and the fact that he gets so much praise just drives me further from his movies!

[Lazario]

While I wouldn't call his films boring, that's exactly my point. He doesn't realize how many things a film can do nor half the things it's supposed to do. He focuses so much on the art/look and sound that he just doesn't know how to keep people interested. And on that note, he can't tell a real story. The scenes look and sound the way he wants, he completely neglects the story. His films are so confusing. And long, that it's very hard to actually care about what's going on most of the time. For a man who tries so many crazy things, he's not as ambitious as some people would have you believe.

[2099net]

Film is one kind of art, but you can't judge it by the same rules as painting or sculpting. Besides, this is a metaphor you seem only ready to use to defend the work of this particular hack. This isn't about me disliking the result. Like I've mentioned before- Lost Highway, Blue Velvet, Eraserhead, and Wild at Heart are nothing more than gaudy, overblown, heavy-handed, underground cult freakshows. Art doesn't mean the thing one person sees it as to everyone else. BUT it is undeniable that Lynch does not pay attention to most details involved in filmmaking. Just the look and sound of his movies. There is more to movies than how they affect the viewer.

People watching films have to have more initiative to actually WATCH the film than simply art direction! If you don't agree, and you continue to say I don't get it, than you are sorrily mistaken. No one director is immune from criticism because his films have ambitious art elements to them. Directors have responsibilities as storytellers as well as art displayers.

Actually Lynch is very involved in the soundmixing of his movies, and . What about Woody Allen's insistance on all his films being made with mono soundtracks? Does that make him a hack?

As it is Wild at Heart got a BAFTA nomination for "Best sound mixing", and the musical soundtracks for Lynch's films are often nominated for Oscar®s and other awards.

As for the narrative of his films, all of his films have a narrative. It's just most are non-traditional or non-linier. Sometimes it's up to the viewer to fill in most of the holes or implications.

I don't actually think a filmmaker does have a responsibilty as a storyteller - not in the traditional sense anyway - as long as the viewer isn't led to believe he will get a traditional story.

If I was buying a record, would I be disappointed to get a album of "ambient sound" and atmosphere rather than "proper" music? Only if I was expecting proper music. I would hope that most people go to a David Lynch movie just as much for the unique atmosphere than the story. Most won't be expecting a traditional story.

It all comes down to what defines a story. Is Alice in Wonderland a story? It's seems to be a series of random events loosely held together by a simple premise. Is Lost in Translation a story? It's more of a snapshot of two lives intersecting.

Is Monty Python and the Holy Grail[/i] a story? It has a nonsensical ending totally out of context of the "reality" the Python's created. Just because Lost Highway isn't a comedy, or a series of loosely connected sketches, doesn't mean it has to have a logical Beginning, middle and end.

You said before he "lucked out" on the Elephant Man and Mulholland Drive. It seems to me you consider these to be "better" films, simply because they fit in more with what "your" opinion of what a film should be than the others.

[Lazario]

You're dancing around, trying to find little loop-holes. But you've yet to cough up anything concrete. For your examples, you've found virtues in great pieces of storytelling like Alice in Wonderland, and filmmaking like Lost in Translation. However, these are miles away from Lynch. With different intentions behind their odd directions and choices. The biggest difference between these and Lynch is that, here we have projects with both compelling stories and an unconventional way of telling them. With characters that have some kind of truth to them. Lynch's films are all about illusion, and a constantly readjusting sense of existence and fact. And they all do this. That to me, signals a filmmaker whom it can be said he knows entirely what he's doing.

You said before he "lucked out" on the Elephant Man and Mulholland Drive. It seems to me you consider these to be "better" films, simply because they fit in more with what "your" opinion of what a film should be than the others.

Close, but no cigar. These films are slightly better examples of a cohesive or meaningful story with characters one could decide to EITHER take seriously or ignore altogether. This isn't about rejecting the not-fully-explained. It's about his competency as a filmmaker.

[Alan]

Andrei Tarkovsky
Akira Kurosawa

[ichabod]

No one's metioned Robert Stevenson yet!?

You're all terrible!