Ok so it has been way too long since anyone has wrote anything on this blog. But that's gonna change, because after Bryan bitched me out for not writing anything, I am gonna pass on that bitching to Jet and make him write something too. So with that in mind, I figured the best thing to do was to start with a little friendly debate....
When you think of the best director of our generation, who comes to mind? Spielberg? Scorsese? Tarantino? Eastwood? Nolan? Mendes? Cohen Brothers? Aronofsky? McG? Haha well, maybe not the last one. And maybe not Tarantino either, since personally I think he is a hack director who came to fame through ripping off other directors' works. But I suppose most directors do this at some time or another, right?
I propose that of the directors that have been major players (meaning consistently make great films) since 2000 (we can debate greatest director of all time another day!), Christopher Nolan is the one director who has consistently shown he can bridge the gap between commercial success without selling out in areas of originality and creativity (e.g. Inception). Since 2000, Nolan has racked up an impressive resume of movies, including Memento (2000), Batman Begins (2005), The Prestige (2006), The Dark Knight (2008), and of course his aforementioned masterpiece Inception (2010).
Who else has a resume of such magnitude in this century? One might say Scorsese, but personally I think that although he has produced some great films (e.g. The Departed), I think movies like Shine a Light support my assumption that Scorsese is not the director of the century.
Perhaps Eastwood? Well, of the ones I listed, I think that Eastwood could have a run for director of the century, with movies such as Mystic River (2003), Million Dollar Baby (2004), Flags of Our Fathers (2006), Letters from Iwo Jima (2006), Changeling (2008), Gran Torino (2008), and Invictus (2010). Although not all of these movies are the most influential of movies as perhaps Christopher Nolan's films, I would argue that these movies are monumental achievements in filmmaking. For a director like Clint, aka Dirty Harry, to make a movie such as Letters from Iwo Jima, a film entirely in another language, and offered as another side to the bloody WWII story, is something that many filmmakers would not have the courage to do. Even Mystic River, a movie that is arguably one of the most emotional and intense movies around, has to be recognized as a stroke of genius by Eastwood.
Who is the best of the 21st century? I look forward to your suggestions and comments.
1-2-3.... DEBATE!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Most of this is preference. I mean, if you pick Nolan because you like all his movies, then who am I to argue that? I do think he's a good pick, though.
As odd as this is going to sound, Clint Eastwood's movies all blend together to me. I loved Mystic River and Invictus and everything in between is just kind of...there. Or I never really got excited about seeing in the first place. That's more of a personal problem.
Aronofsky has only made three movies since 2000. They're great, but that's not enough.
Peter Jackson gets mentioned just on the strength of Lord of the Rings.
Spielberg was hit (The Terminal, Catch Me If You Can, Munich) and miss (Indiana Jones x 3. It sucked that bad).
The Cohens are overrated, especially if we aren't counting The Big Lebowski and Fargo.
I've only seen Road to Perdition from Mendes...so no.
I guess I'd go with Christopher Nolan almost by process elimination. It's hard to direct good movies.
I like your thought process sir. I forgot Jackson, but instantly negate him for the abysmal "Lovely Bones" that was just awful. AWFUL. But Lord of the Rings equal obvious awesomeness.
Aronofsky makes art house flicks. He is all about taking the least amount of money possible and making the best movie he can out of it. Points for noble effort in making it about filmmaking, but it comes across as pretentious due to the fact that he COULD get more money to make a slightly better film.
I agree about the Coens (yeah I accidently spelled their name wrong initially, oops). "No Country for Old Men" was okay. I can appreciate its point, but it was not amazing. Burn After Reading had some funny parts, but not memorable. To me the last great film from them was "O Brother Where Art Thou?"
Sam Mendes has some good movies, but they are quiet successes in my opinion. No one really realizes they are alright until they get notice at award shows. Although I couldn't stand the movie "Jarhead," and "Revolutionary Road" was good but it essentially was a made for tv movie that was transferred to the big screen. "Away We Go" was not bad, either, but again, it was a quiet success. No one really remembers it.
Spielberg was definitely hit or miss. "Catch Me If You Can" is one of the most entertaining movies I've ever seen, although it essentially flopped at the box office unfortunately (weird for Spielberg). This was also the case for "The Terminal," which I personally liked, especially Tom Hanks' performance. Indiana Jones should have died at the end of the IJ4. That was awful. (To take several years arguing over the script, making it "perfect" was not evident in the end result).
Eastwood's movies blend together because most of them make you feel the same while watching it. Obviously "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" are essentially the same movie, but "Gran Torino" and "Million Dollar Baby", while very very different, make me think they are a continuation of the Eastwood characters in both of the respective movies. "Mystic River" is just amazing though. And to be honest, I think the reason they run together is that the characters are similar and are usually played by the same actors (Morgan Freeman).
You're probably right about Clint Eastwood. I feel like I've seen Gran Torino even though I never have. It's just one of those things, I guess.
We just Netflixed Troll and Troll 2. Awesomeness is sure to follow.
I'm sad to hear you wasted your time on "The Lovely Bones" The book was intriguing. After seeing the previews though I knew the movie wouldn't do the book any justice. I regret not being able to save you the $8.50+ you paid to see it. As for the best director? Depends solely on my movie mood...
Post a Comment