Terry Gilliam: Time Bandits, The Fisher King

FF Coppola: Bram Stokers Dracula

Oliver Stone: JFK

Tarantino: Pulp Fiction

Wolfgang Petersen: Das Boot

Important to me, and my studies in directing and acting were folks like Elia Kazan, and the eventual Actor's Studio, and then Peter Brook, and his studio in Paris and some of the work he has done, which has been some of the most experimental ever done, in both film (The Mahabharatta) and theater (Midsummer Night's Dream and then later Marat/Sade) who gave so many folks a voice in both film and theater due to their work.

The one director that has become my favorite, is probably the craziest of them all and even in his old age, he is out there and impossible to define, and he is just a kid with a camera in his hands ... because things never seem to be totally coordinated but somehow come together. It's hard not to see some of this, even if it was accidental (which much of it probably is!) and see a camera ignore the dialogue between two lovers, and it gives you a feeling that the event is not important, since the camera is moving to watch something else, that has nothing to do with the pair and their discussion ... and of course, their relationship is falling apart! And you sit here and go ... hmmmmm   ... that's interesting, but the camera ignoring the story and the pair, makes you wonder ... why and what? And figuring it out, along with his habit of talking over the film, and placing music in the different areas of the film, makes you wonder if this is all supposed to be serious ... but you, at least, know that some of the ideas are deadly serious. But you will never see the things he does anywhere else, and many directors have tried to copy bits and pieces and it did not stand up well, and looked stupid, and in some cases (Tarantino) it looked like blatant rip offs without any connection whatsoever to his own film ... very Godard in its idea, but in Godard's case, it doesn't feel like it is not a part of it all.

Nowadays, you can see the likes of a Gaspar Noe, or Lars Van Trier and others, that think they have the touch of the weird and bizarre, however, in both cases, their "freedom" that gave them the ideas that helped them create at the start, all of a sudden are nothing but indulgent ... and boring! I'm not sure that I can say the same thing for many of the great directors and their work ... they always challenged you!

Missing on the list, is Orson Welles, who deserves his place in history, for creating two things that drove people insane. The first was his radio program that got the country scared ... and then the war came! (The War of the Worlds on radio!), and later, of course CITIZEN KANE, still a landmark in American Film, however, one that is liked in Film School, but is quickly dissed and dismissed because it is anti-establishment and hard core so. And while Orson Welles did not seem to continue being a great writer and director, he did put together things that are not appreciated, like CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, which was trashed silly by academics and people that did not like anyone creating a story about a Shakespearean character that is in various plays! However, his importance to theater and film from the late 30's to the 50's is not to be ignored, as it signaled the independence and the fight that the characters and actors in THE ACTOR'S STUDIO became famous for ... few will ever forget Marlon Brando's scream ... Stelllllllllllllllllllllllllla! And what it meant for American film and theater at the time. 

 

 Alan Resnais - Providence

 Nicolas Roeg - Don't Look Now

 Ridley Scott - Blade Runner

 Todd Solondz - Happiness

 Andrei Tarkovsky - Andrei Rublev

 Lars von Trier - Melancholia

 François Truffaut - Jules et Jim 

Ingmar Bergman - Wild Strawberries

Werner Herzog - Aguirre

Went for Tarkovsky/Tarr/Von Trier although I don't know Tarr. The combination of Ken Loach and David Lynch is funny cause I can't stand the former but love the latter director