July 08, 2005
Directors favourite films
Want to know what some of the influencial (and not so influencial) names in film making think are their top movies are? Well the Independent online newspaper through Cinematical has a story highlighting the film-makers top tens included in John Walker's 'Halliwell's Top 1000' published in June.
It's quite an interesting read, just to see what influences the movie makers themselves. I'm just going to list all their number ones (no joke intended), go and check out the article and see what you think (you might have to cut and paste the story into something that will interpret the HTML, otherwise it's not too readble) then come back here and let's have a discussion about them.
QUENTIN TARANTINO: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Leone, 1966)
TIM ROBBINS: The Battle of Algiers (Pontecorvo, 1965)
PAUL VERHOEVEN: La Dolce Vita (Fellini, 1960)
GILLIAN ARMSTRONG: Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
BERNARDO BERTOLUCCI: La Règle du Jeu (Renoir, 1939)
JOHN BOORMAN: Seven Samurai (Kurosawa, 1954)
JIM JARMUSCH: L'Atalante (Vigo, 1934)
MILOS FORMAN: Amarcord (Fellini, 1973)
CATHERINE BREILLAT: Ai No Corrida (Oshima, 1976)
CAMERON CROWE: The Apartment (Wilder, 1960)
SAM MENDES: Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
LUKAS MOODYSSON: Bicycle Thieves (De Sica, 1948)
MIKE NEWELL: The Apartment (Wilder, 1960)
TERRY JONES: Annie Hall (Allen, 1977)
MICHAEL MANN: Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)
KEN LOACH: A Bout de Souffle (Godard, 1959)
SIDNEY LUMET: The Best Years of Our Lives (Wyler, 1946)
Is it quite telling that looking at the dates the oldest movie is 1979? Tim Robbins gives his ten spot to Waiting for Guffman (Guest, 1996), and the most mentioned film seems to be Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958). Good choices? Surprises for anyone? Why are there no newer movies in there, what do you think the reasons are?
Posted by at July 8, 2005 08:24 AM
Comments
Posted by: Pudie at July 8, 2005 10:58 AM
I doubt it. Most of the movies made today are crap compared to those movies. Good directors can appreciate those older classic movies. I'm surprised more didn't say The Seven Samurai.
Posted by: Tan The Man at July 8, 2005 02:20 PM
FYI: these are taken from Sight & Sound's 2002 poll, where critics and directors are asked to send in their all-time top 10's.
Posted by: AlexHL at July 8, 2005 07:06 PM
I don't know if "most of the movies made today" are crap: I suppose that's true if you're only paying attention to Hollywood films. I think it's like with any other area of the arts where the older works are always respected more than anything current, and it takes years for present work to gain significance. It's also obvious, as Pudie pointed out, that they're going to cite films that made an impact in their younger, more formative years.
Posted by: Arethusa at July 8, 2005 09:30 PM
Arethusa, I think you've knocked it on the head there, that's exactly why most modern movies aren't in the lists. A movie needs time to influence other movies, and that doesn't happen overnight. A movie is made, people see it and are influenced by it and as Pudie said, those people then grow up and some become film makers, that's when the influence gets recycled into other movies. The more this happens the more towards the classic influence it steers, so that in a generations time things like AvP can be classics.
Ermm...okay, maybe not that one!
Posted by: Richard Brunton at July 9, 2005 06:07 AM
It is directors of course who really know about cinema: compare this with the silly Empire survey. And they simply state what should be obvious to everyone: classic cinema is by FAR the best ever done. About these personal choices (I would like more directors to talk, specially such a good connaisseur as Martin Scorsese, I personally have noticed Sidney Lumet (his own career is amazing) choice: a William Wyler movie. This director, who know seems to be, lie many others, forgotten, made a fascinanting career. And anyone who loudly claims his/her love for cinema should taka a look at most of his real good, real wonderful movies, in front of which 98% of modern cinema pally in comparison.
Posted by: Peter at July 9, 2005 06:33 AM
Hi there Peter, nice to see ya again since our Sith days. *winks*
I have a question. Out of the 16 films mentioned here, I have only heard about 6-7 and saw 3 of them, does that mean there is something wrong with my taste?
Posted by: Simone at July 9, 2005 03:42 PM
Hi Simone :)
Taste is quite a personal thing, so there is no "wrong" or "right" taste, IMO. I haven´t seen ALL the films mentioned either. But now there´s DVDs, cable TV, and classic cinema is very available.
In fact, it´s only about pleasure. It´s a great pleasure to discover these films, at least to me! I invite you to take your seat, and enjoy.
Posted by: Peter at July 10, 2005 07:55 AM
Gotcha Peter. I better start with Seven Samurai. ;-)
Posted by: Simone at July 10, 2005 08:27 AM
Seven Samauri a F**king great piece of cinema. A must for any cineafile. But to do Kurasawa right you should also check out:
Yojimbo, Throne of Blood and Ran.
Posted by: herby at July 11, 2005 02:37 AM
Thanks for the other suggestions Herbie! :-)
Posted by: Simone at July 11, 2005 07:36 AM
Most of these directors grew up with movies from those times or a little bit earlier so this is no real surpise. Movies connect with you most in the teens/20's. Ask acclaimed directors 20 years from now to name their favorites and I'm sure you'll get some ones from this time and ignoring the ones out then.