Some comments on these directors, as the post was longer than I thought.

Peter Weir - helped put Australian film on the map with his works. Really fun early stuff that is nutz. The Plumber and then The Cars That Ate Paris.

Giuseppe Tornatore - Not always mentioned in the lists of great films, but his stuff is really neat, loving and has a touch that is very ... unlike a lot of cinema. It seems like in his films the appreciation for the far out and the "dream" is more important than the reality!

Bernardo Bertolucci - Has some really neat stuff, and a lot of it might be due to Cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, who always made things look neat. And he was able to "color" things when BB wanted a color for this or that ... in which case you saw it for awhile. Interesting, and even personally touching style, allowing you to feel the character better than most films, and this might be a BB touch.

Luis Bunuel - one of the great surrealists with Salvador Dali, he was the only one to actually get into film, and continue the tradition of "surrealism" that seemed to have died out after the idea. In the hands of Luis Bunuel, it ended up bringing up so much cynicism about the times and places, that was ridiculous and insane. And then you get to see a film go through the inside of various folks' minds, and you wonder ... hmmm ... oh well, will just take a walk to nowhere to see where it leads us?

Federico Fellini - the "bad boy" in Italian Cinema, but he got his films making money in many other countries when the church would decide they didn't like a film by Federico. In the end, he is better remembered than the rest of Italian Cinema, when many folks might not even even name one, let alone 2 directors.

Francois Truffaut - A tough choice for me, as he is not a favorite but he had a touch for the improvised materials that he used that worked really well, even though it also looked rehearsed ... I think his earlier material was more interesting.

Jean-Luc Godard - One of the most polarizing of directors ever. He did not care about the "history" of cinema, and HOW things were defined and designed, and spent his life turning those conventions inside out and upside down to absolutely amazing results. Not only were actors just meandering and improvising, the director himself had a habit of improvising right over the visuals, and sometimes even say ... I didn't like that shot ... and it goes backwards and it is done in a different manner! You and I will often wonder ... hmmmm!!!

Pedro Almodovar - I think he tried to copy Luis Bunuel, but a different time and place made it difficult and then he discovered that he could have the women in his films have all the fun, and everyone would notice. Well, let's say that sometimes it is weird, sometimes it is crazy, sometimes bizarre and sometimes it takes us to places we didn't expect. His later material seems to be less interesting for my tastes and I think that he is thinking too much ... I thought the earlier material had more freedom, to help create the moments it did.

Terry Gilliam - While, never considered a great director, his imaginary ideas and films are a sight to behold. His world is way out there, and if anything, it becomes "seen" in "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote" ... and guess what ... he is Don Quixote ... the man with a thousand dreams that never end ... and he makes films of them!

Peter Greenaway - One of the tough one to watch, and appreciate in film, and when you see his choreography in a lot of his material, you wonder what's in his mind. Prospero's Books is a sort of writer in the 22nd or 23rd century, when the imagery will be alive for us all ... not just words or pictures! (... so to speak!) ... and then you see The Pillow Book and yo come out wondering what that PIP was all about ... and I think it is the characters inner side, although that is never really explained or clearly shown/seen. And his best film? ... well, it's best you see it for yourself.

Nicolas Roeg - Starting as a cinematographer, he ended up directing and spent time with Theresa Russell whom he married and made several films with. His style is visual to the max and sometimes seems exaggerated, but it makes a special point that is hard to discuss ... there is a side that is brutal, then there is a side that is fleeting, then there is a side that is ... what? and you can't define many things.

Werner Herzog - Sometimes I don't know what to say about him, but watching so much of his early films and almost the improvised style, makes one wonder how a film can ever come alive, but it does. Even when it is scripted (Nosferatu) you get the feeling that the words were an idea, not the reality and something else came out.

Zhang Yimou - Given some credit for helping the Chinese Film Industry come alive in the 1990's he has a listing of films that are really good, and special. Raise the Red Lantern appears to be the film that got him noticed quickly.

Ken Russell - Always thought as the master of the abuse and outrageousness or excesses in film, he was much more attuned to the various things around artists ... and a lot of his life was strictly about that. But he always made sure that each and every film had its own special touch, even if it did not "fit" the whole thing, and sometimes it is maddening, and frustrating, but always entertaining. At least, many times yo come out with a giggle, and I guess that's good! But you don't need to giggle for MAHLER, or SAVAGE MESSIAH ... and it shows his appreciation for the art itself!

Peter Brook - A director better known for helping actors do things even better, his films illustrated a lot of his improvisational style of working, and how some things were developed. A style that is very intricate and "careful" with the dialogue, well learned and taught in his days at the RSC helping actors get stronger on stage to get audiences even more amazed.

David Lean - Often thought of as the master of the visuals in film ... be it close, or a long shot ... make that VERY LONG shot, that today's audiences might have an issue with since that is almost 3 minutes ...WITH NO ACTION! NONE ... NADA ... but the beauty that it helps the film with will forever be in your imagination. And it's hard for you to not "replay" many of those moments. It's just like a song you hum along with.

Akira Kurosawa - The bad boy in Japanese cinema and he ended up not having the most money (the studios stole all that), but he is way more remembered and appreciated than all those producers and folks that denied him a film. And his material was special, although one could say also "personal" since he changed tunes every now and then. He is also a very "visual" director where the scenery is as important to the film, as it is to the actor and actresses.

Green Card (1990)

The Truman Show (1998)

 1969: Hannibal Brooks -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4BB_kXLDv4&pbjreload=102" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4BB_kXLDv4&pbjreload=102

 1972: Chato's Land

 1972: The Mechanic

 1973: Scorpio

 1973: The Stone Killer -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYESGHbfaV0" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYESGHbfaV0

 1974: Death Wish

Ashgar Farhadi:

About Elly

A Separation

The Past

The Salesman

Andrei Tarkovsky:

Andrei Rublev

Solaris

Stalker

Ulrich Seidl:

Dog Days

Import/Export

Paradise: Love

Hi,

It was an awesome listing and I remembered it, but couldn't find it, however, I wanted to see which ones came up quickly in my mind, films that I could imagine right away.

From that list, and the only bad thing is that I didn't want to put everything in the list ... 

I just saw Holland's "Copying Beethoven" and it was a very nice film. She is so good at making sure she has full characters and so many of them do so well.

Gaspar Noe, I decided not to list, because ... because ... well, I didn't want to turn people off some of his stuff, which while insane, it is also very challenging. 

I missed Kieslowski altogether, and I have always thought "The Double Life of Veronique" one of the prettiest things I have ever seen!

Alexandro Jodorowski is a favorite, though mostly because of my theater background, and how he does some things. Love his "staging" of anything.

Lars von Trier I would love to have seen more, but I can not afford the extra cost on Amazon, and I can not find sites that might have some more of these films.

In general, the last 10 years, with the Internet, it has been very tough for me to pick up more international films, and I'm not sure I enjoy too many of the "specials" and the "series" of stuff they do to counter real film. 

Hi, 

I've seen at least these films, but in terms of reviewing them, it is difficult for me as most of them are a "lesson" in Hollywood directing, that is taught at USC and UCLA and considered the status and ideal for American film. The sad side of that is that it takes away the folks that DO experiment and come up with far out, weird, strange, and very good stuff. I was never a Robert Altman fan, and then I saw his improvisations with everything including lighting and cameras, to throw actors off, and I ended up appreciating his stuff a lot more now, than I did way back when.

"The Last Temptation of Christ" ... read the book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" ... and while I liked this film, it is a subject matter that I do not enjoy as too much of it is based on horrible translations of news that was already at least 300 years old! 

However, in general, the leads in all Scorcese films are very well scripted and filmed. He does have a very good sense for camera, however, he can't get away from the old Hollywood thing ... like shot/crosshot kind of thing, that destroys "literature" altogether. For me, the point of view switch, often eats up the story big time.

Martin Scorcese, is also listed as one of the Editors for the film WOODSTOCK, and guess which shot is the one that he probably worked on? That is something he did again and again in various films of his ... 

Hi,

It probably will give you a better idea why rock music, for me, is not as important at times. There were some great things done all over the world, but we tend to only like 2 of those countries material (so to speak!!!), and that is something that bothers me some. 

My appreciation for so much different music, is almost the same as that for so much different film. There's too much beauty out there in this world for it all to be wasted, and for my tastes this commercial this and that is not allowing more folks to see/find more stuff they can enjoy and appreciate. However, when you are "conditioned" to think that this or that is the standard of "good", with "top ten" everything ... the ability to hear something different goes out the window some ... 

This was the saddest sight at the Portland International Film Festival that I ever saw ... all the American and English films were sold out, the majority of French and Italian were well represented, but the rest? When I saw "The Island on Bird Street", it had maybe 100 people for a totally far out and excellent film, that a mouse was the biggest thing. It had been advertised as a child's film, and that is one thing that film is NOT. Likewise, there was a film from Mozambique on a different year that had 30 people in the audience. Well, the Almodovar love affair here (he had at least one premiere here) was always well attended by the society of the long flute drink, and be seen dressed to the max! 

On the reviews for many of the films from PIFF, which their own folks would not support or even appreciate (I wrote many notes for many films for them!) I was always telling people to see the odd stuff ... BECAUSE ALL THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH FILMS WILL BE ON VIDEO! (N ow DVD)

The rest? Never seen again!

You're talking my language now... you can add Fireworks Wednesday to that list too...

then we can also add Jafar Panahi, Abbas Kiarostami, Samira Makhmalbaf and at least another 10 criminally underrated Iranian directors... 

Hi,

Leave it to Guy to make sure we did not miss much ... all three of the suggestions are excellent, and yeah ... I totally missed Orson Welles ... beautiful work in general. Richard Lester was fun, even if Spike Milligan said that he was merely putting on screen what the GOONS had already done (a few of the early films I imagine!) ... and Jacques Tati ... a nice touch all around!

The three new folks I have to check some more ... not sure I can even list much by them!

Regarding Bertolucci, I prefer some of his earlier work: Prima della rivoluzione, Last Tango in Paris, Il conformista, Novecento (1900). I'm much less convinced by his siruppy hollywoody endeavors like Little Buddha, The Sheltering Sky, The Last Emperor... despite, indeed, the exceptional cinematography by Storaro!

Other than those, I would mention Béla Tarr as another exceptionnal contemporary filmmaker. When someone asks me, learning that I'm working in the film world, what is my preferred film, and to cut short to every discussion because these are questions impossible to answer, I tend to mention Tarr's Sátántangó. To me it is indeed one of the best films ever, but hardly anybody has seen it (the 7:30h duration might be responsible for that, somehow...). If you're more in a hurry, check out his Werckmeister Harmonies or - and maybe especially - The Turin Horse...

Closer to home, for me, I would mention Paul Verhoeven. Although his style does not please everyone (apart from his provocotive stances he is also often exaggerating stereotypes and clichés - so it is not of all "finesse"), once you adhere to it or accept it, his films are often a very accurate analysis of the dysfunctionality of our societies and  the hypocrisy of our moral standards, especially when it comes to sexe, violence and/or religion... From Turkish Delight, via Spetters, Robocop, Starship Troopers up to Benedetta, there is a real constant in his work. Maybe obsessive, but very to the point, imho, if one can scratch the surface...

And then there are so many others in film history that making a list becomes impossible...

Pedro, why make lists?

Hi,

The Iranian list of directors is a scary list, specially with all the current politics going on, and I think that film ... A NOTORIOUS anti-establishment art ... is one thing that probably scares a lot of folks, expecting some guards and "inspectors" to make sure that ...................................... endless listing!

I even remember at least one "Divorce, Iranian Style" which was amazing, and insane, and to think that those "in charge" allow such things to go on and continue ... is crazy ... I also read somewhere, a special maybe somewhere else, about the many "clerics" pretty much selling young girls out ... which hurts them later as they try to marry, although you and I would think that things might have proved a bit different now, but in the end, with a regime that appears to have more respect for its "law" than it does "its people" ... one wonders how long it will last. 

There is music, but other than the generic pop music, there are some interesting combinations, and they are not as well known to the "general" Iranian folks I know ... but they like the music. Music might have a better way out, since it can be done without "lyrics", thus your ideas can be effectively masked and you can still put it together with the music. 

But the other arts? ... scary thought!

Hi,

AND music, by Ryuichi Sakamoto, and in The Last Emperor with David Byrne, which won an OSCAR. The classical music in "The Last Buddha" is outstanding. And a couple of pieces from "The Sheltering Sky" are still requested on his live piano shows.

"Last Tango in Paris" , is not something I specially liked. It had a bad feeling for me. "1900" is something that is very close to me, in terms of politics and bullcrap. We certainly faced enough of it in Portugal, and I think that my dad wanted to leave to escape that and become a "full time" writer and scholar, in order to be able to forget and ignore the politics. My mom's family had a hard time with it and lost a couple of members to it. The whole thing, after WW2, and then the fall of Salazar later, was worse than the film. I don't like films of that kind as much as I do not wish to have the memories of some things that just weren't right during my life.

suitkees wrote: ... Agree with you on Buñuel, I would just explicitly mention one of his earlier exceptional works, with Dali: L'âge d'or. ...

Really hard and difficult to choose something of his, but the 2 early pieces are less "films" than they were "shorts" and is the reason why I tend to leave them behind. However, it does not diminish their impression and effect on the visual arts. But then, we forget that in Spain, the Civil War had many issues and Picasso put all the pieces into one painting ... I always hoped that we got the idea ... but obviously some places in this earth don't!

...

And thank you for such a nice response and addition. At the very least, for anyone wanting to check some director's work, we have given them quite a taste.

[Edit for space]

I'm not at all sure why you corelated this film with that particular book. I have read the book by Nikos Kazantzakis from which "The Last Temptation..." was adapted and although Paul Schrader made some interesting choices in what to include in his screenplay, on the whole it is a very good adaption, and I count it amongst my favorite Scorcese directed movies.

Perhaps you are getting "The Last Temptation..." confused with "The DaVinci Code" which some do believe purloined its ideas from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".

Hi,

As do I, btw. (favorite film by Scorcese)

I like the Kazantzakis book, and in general it tells a story that has been around a lot more than it is accepted, or discussed. The "church" could not touch him, in Greece, which helped his status and ability to write it. The media onslaught would not get picked up in Greece like it would be in Rome, where so much of the media is owned by you know who! And, of course, loved spending its time going after American films, and the film makers after WW2 in Italy and Europe to try and make themselves more valuable in terms of "moral law" ... 

"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is a very well documented historical work, and although its long discussion and follow up of the hidden group of things, is a bit on the tiring side, but so much of that history has been destroyed by the Catholic Church in the last 1000 years plus. It's easier so see how Kazantzakis wrote his book ... but it also tells you that the story has been around a long time, likely (STILL) in an oral tradition so it's "safer" than folks being persecuted for their "beliefs".

Either way, it's a hard discussion, because so much history and facts have been erased out, and the main church in the whole story, continues to place more importance on a fake story, so they could maintain a sense of control and favor for their catechism. The whole story is not on par with "human perception" ... at all ... it's all invented ideology for people that thought they "knew" God, and since they were the "leaders" of it all, they could determine what was decided. Hardly a good story, for one that creates a religion ... 

The hardest part, though, is that the translations from the original texts that have survived, are off the wall, and so different, which only confuses matters all the more. 

BTW, I have never read the "Da Vinci" thing, or enjoyed seeing in the film or two about it. I thought it was more misinformation, to confuse folks even more. In the end, "movie stories" helps hide all the stuff in the Vatican that keeps history erased.

Hi,

Francois Truffaut, makes a bit more sense, specially in the early days, when one gets to know "improvisation" in both theater, film and music.

Truffaut's style was/is, what is considered a "guided improvisation", in that you have a setting and the characters and you tell them to discuss their marriage on the way to the supermarket. The dialogue and the timing it takes to get there are "open" and the actor can do a lot of things within this time span. To me, this is really "visible" in "Jules et Jim" a lot ... you never get the feel that these words were actually scripted or thought about.

An improvisation that is not "guided" is the source/soul of the work that Peter Brook did at the RSC and went on to do in Paris, even with actors that could not speak to each other, and yet ... were able to put on work together. Communication is the key, not the words or the setting. It's all you "got", so to speak. And these are much wilder, in the sense that there are no limits and where it goes ... it goes ... and may become a different story.

We did this in Advanced Acting Class at UCSB ( I was there as a Director Student not an Actor), and it was on our "lab" time, with someone that was English that had been through the time of the RSC's and NT's. We turned down the lights and for 3 hours we were 6 or 7 year old kids for 3 hours ... and there are a lot of lessons in that time. Ex: What you start with is nothing compared to what you end up with. Your communication with various folks changes many times. Your "character" becomes non-existent in the sense that the amount of time, prevents a "definition" ... something that most acting schools try hard to teach all new actors about (including the concept's and ideas!!!! WOW!!!) ... and in the end ... these are huge wastes of time when you can teach the character creation from "nothing" much better than you can from the script itself. The "words" in the script are also an "idea", which you can easily transpose to someone on a wheelchair, or an athlete, or Didi/Estragon. AND, still make a character with those words.

Seeing, "improvisation" in theater is difficult, since a lot of times it is very well hidden. You will never know when Keith Michell is off in wonderland ... and it works, almost to the point of it being ridiculous. Peter Brook tells a story about him that is about that repeating line in King Lear, that they did over 300 performances of it, and he had a hard time find 2 of them that were the same. That is "improvisation" at its best ... ASSOCIATED with that moment specific time and space! You, almost, can not teach that!

Godard's style of improvisation is ... I don't care, and it shows. Mike Leigh's style is one I am not sure I like ... but it works. I call it start it ... and then let the actor suffer through it to get even more out of it! It's hard, and few actors can do this, but there are times when you can see on his screen that ... man ... you are pushing it! 

I can not, at this moment, discuss this properly in French, Italian film. In German film it's a different story ... open up the Herzog film about "his friend" and watch the beginning with Klaus. This is the same type of improvisation that gave us a lot of theater, film in Germany. Fassbinder let his actors do their own thing. And Klaus is famous for his improvisation to the max. And this was the same time that "krautrock" came alive, and is why I state that the scene is an artistic one, not one about rock music! Amon Duul started as a "drum circle" (more or less with more instruments), but in my book when it got "meaningless", AD2 came alive ... and immediately made fun of it with their first album, which was of course, a massive attack on the "drum circle" which was nothing but the start of today's orgy! ... (... and it gets weird ... once the drugs take hold!) ... CAN was all pure improvisation, and TAGO MAGO shows it in two sides, even if they were cut up pieces, as Holger suggested came from 20 hours of tapes. GURU GURU had a lot of improvisation allowing Ax Genrich a chance to do his own "space junk", which we know is something Jimi Hendrix did, but was not to incorporate into his music ... at the time it was show ... all of a sudden, it's a part of the music. FAUST was also wide open, and it didn't matter what they did.

There is a "point" in improvisation, that the whole thing ... comes alive ... but the hardest part is what most folks are afraid of ... you have to stay on it ... and in the rock tradition the whole thing ends when a riff is in place ... which is stupid ... there is a lot more life after that one riff ... more like 30 more riffs! It's really hard to discuss improvisation with musicians that only know the notes ... you have to LET GO EVERYTHING and (essentially) go back to being a kid and re-learn it all ... your "feel" and "touch" will be different, and it will add to your abilities. Most musicians are afraid of this area because it is not "documented" ...for them to copy and learn!

The thought with musicians is like this ... they will quit the improvisation right after their 5 tricks ... because now they don't know what to do ... and they are more "in tune" with the notes they are playing, than they are with the people they are with. This improv will take longer, until the musicians can find themselves, which we know they won't do, and quit as quickly as they "find" something cool, not realizing that continuing teaches you more than just finding one riff!

Tells you all about the learning, doesn't it?

 1964: The Killers

 1968: Coogan's Bluff

 1970: Two Mules for Sister Sara

 1971: The Beguiled

It doesn't help that "Holy Blood and Holy Grail" was based largely on a made-up document. "The Da Vinci Code" is a mish mash of history borrowed from all over the place, much of which is unrelated and twisted to form a rather standard murder mystery, all be it on a rather controversial subject for some, mostly because it introduced concepts that aren't normally considered by mainstream readers.

The history of the Bible is indeed twisted to the point that it totally lacks any sort of credibility for me and that in itself is a subject that can long be discussed.

Suffice it to say that one of my favorite scenes from "The Last Temptation..." is the meeting between Jesus and Paul that demonstrates how little the historical Jesus actually matters to the whole story.