Total Film's 100 Greatest Directors Ever: 1. Alfred Hitchcock

Trying to make this guy out as an auteur is ze joke. He's a journeyman. This is not a disgrace. It's just a fact. He's a Frankenheimer.

 

"Trying to make this guy out as an auteur is ze joke. He's a journeyman. This is not a disgrace. It's just a fact. He's a Frankenheimer."

Well, you could make a case that between 1961 and 1973 Frankenheimer was an auteur; a man who clearly dictated the style and visuals of his films (you can't tell me the man had no style, and while THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE gets all the credit, SECONDS is an utter masterpiece, and THE TRAIN ain't no slouch of a film either). Comparing Pakula to Frankenheimer is an insult to the immense talents of the latter, at least in my opinion. It's a shame that after 1973 the man was a pale shadow of his former self (the kinds of projects he was given are demonstrative of that though...one could say he was dealt a bad hand by the studios).

"Funny thing is, much as I liked All the President's Men, I didn't exactly think it had great direction."

That reminds me very much of my feelings about GLENGARRY, GLENN, ROSS. A cracker of a script with some great performances and an interesting story, but I'll be damned if that direction ain't some of the most workmanlike, boring stuff I've ever seen. No surprise that he's the same dude who directed this year's bomb PERFECT STRANGER (or whatever the hell that movie was called).

 

There are times that a journeyman director can make a great movie. Frankenheimer and "The Manchurian Candidate" is an example. Robert Wise and "The Haunting" are held to be another (I am not a great fan of horror movies). It's usually in the script; or the cast; or lightning strikes.

It's also noticeable that some directors only seem to have a few movies in them, just as some authors only have a few books, while others are hugely prolific. This seems to have little to do with talent; given the nature of the beast, director is a back-breaking job these days. Pakula seems to me to be a director of the type where the movie looks untouched by human hands (ie. bland)--the interest is in the story or the performances.

NOTE: the director you mentioned is James Foley

 

"There are times that a journeyman director can make a great movie. Frankenheimer and "The Manchurian Candidate" is an example. Robert Wise and "The Haunting" are held to be another (I am not a great fan of horror movies). It's usually in the script; or the cast; or lightning strikes."

Again, I just respectfully disagree with the term "journeyman director" as you apply it to Frankenheimer. Until the mid 70s, the guy was absolutely NOT a journeyman by any stretch. He doesn't belong in the same breath as folks like say, Allan Dwan or Henry Hathaway (altough Hathaway made a trio of great noir titles in the mid and late 40s). He had a very clear visual style that, when it accompanied material appropriate to it, created an absolute tour-de-force of cinematic expression. I don't know if you've seen SECONDS but if you haven't, you should. It may be the most staunchly existentialist film to ever come out of Hollywood. And it's scary, really, really scary. It's also much better than THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (which I like and which has more going on in it than good performances and a good script). Oddly, the end came for Frankenheimer shortly after he made the televised adaptation of THE ICEMAN COMETH (with Lee Marvin). This isn't to say he never made bad films before this (he made some clunkers for sure), but he never again got the kind of material that proved so inspirational to him and his style.

Wise is an interesting case. His visual style in some of his pictures was definitely not boring or even workmanlike. However, he definitely could (and should to a degree) be considered a journeyman. I think he's a much better example of what you're looking for, but even I'd slot him far, far ahead of a guy like Pakula (and Pakula never made movies like THE SET-UP, CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE, or THE HAUNTING).

 

Have you seen the special features/interviews on the new 2-disc version of ATPM? All the main people involved loved Pakula, and it seemed to be very much a collaborative effort. I think he sort of ran the show while letting the others have a lot of input.

 

Altman and Allen are directors like that, too. Which means actors want to work with them, because they will be indulged, not necessarily in the right way.

 

"We're not talking about exquisite taste here; we're talking about really obvious candidates for the list, in other words, basic taste. "

Yeah, yeah, still comparing 20s and 30s directors with 70s ones is silly especially when we already has concluded that this is not the most truthfull of lists.

 

No problem at all comparing 20's and 30's directors with later ones, IMO.

 

Personally, I think Ronin was a creative rebirth for Frankenheimer. Recaptures the genius, however briefly.

 

Agreed. IMO the strength was in the screenwriting, and the acting.

 

Directing is an invisible job! If you're conscious of the directing, it's not working. I get bewildered when I see people see "I enjoyed watching the direction." Huh?

The direction IS the film. You can't know what went on on the set, how it all blended together - everyone's individual contributions, but the director's job is in effect to orchestrate all the other elements of the film so it fuses into a whole. If you say the script and the acting were the strengths, you're negating the work the director did with supervising the script and guiding the actors.

I know of what I speak. Read William Goldman's book ADVENTURES IN THE SCREEN TRADE. Goldman wrote the script for ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN and in his book he has a lot to say about Pakula as a director. It's all positive. And that's from a screenwriter who often loathes directors.

 

If one goes to the movies purely for entertainment, the telling of a tale well-told, your vision of a director is completely understood. It's also why Hollywood loves guys like Pakula (and today cats like Ratner and Chris Columbus).

In contrast, I go to the movies for art (of wildly diverging kinds). A great director brings a wildness, an energy, and a visual verve to a material that is otherwise lifeless and dull on paper. Great directors can take whacky stories (VERTIGO), maudlin scripts (DUEL IN THE SUN), and bland acting (KISS ME DEADLY) and turn the result into something utterly extraordinary. I want to watch a film without a potent visual style about as much as I want to read a novel without the author's distinctive voice.

Of course Goldman liked Pakula. Pakula played it safe, never dared questioned Goldman's authority, and made a faithful adaptation of his script. Screenwriters love that.

 

I don't agree with the General very often, but I will say a hearty amen/hallellujah to these sentiments...

 

Yes, so do I. There's certainly a place for restraint in direction, but there's also a place for a very definite perspective from the director.

 

Me too except no Hitchcook was ever art.
Who's next? I sure hope for McTiernan or Cosmatos.

 

The point about restraint is really good. And it did work in AtPM.

I guess I just feel that if your one really great flick is one where you sat back, you haven't really earned a place on a top 100 list. I need more than that.

 

92. Paul Verhoeven

The flying dutchman

?Of course there are nude scenes? I?m Dutch!? Verhoeven?s always had a nose for the box office, pulling in punters with lashings of sex and ultraviolence. It?s a basic instinct summed up in that Sharon Stone crotch shot. Even his early Dutch work was more grindhouse than arthouse: see the bold eroticism of Turkish Delight or Spetters. When Hollywood beckoned, Verhoeven impressed with ironic/iconic sci-fi(Robocop, Starship Troopers) until success bred excess (Showgirls). Returning home triggered a comeback in Black Book?s pulp blend of Nazis, sex and dyed fannies. Well, he is Dutch?

Picture perfect RoboCop, future shock.

My favorite of his is definitely Starship Troopers. Not only is it a great sci-fi action war film, but I love the satire as well. I've always wanted to get around to reading the book also.

 

Only seen Robocop and Starship Troopers.
Both alrigth action films with a pinch of satire.
I will never forget the chickenwalker or Robocop eating those baby meals.
Verhoeven gets a two out of five.

 

Vertigo is certainly art in every sense.

Just because Hitchcock was about entertaining an audience, doesn't mean he didn't have an artist's sensibilities. He know how to craft a story, but he also knew how to make it literary. Vertigo, for example, has so many subtleties going on in everything from the performances, to the story, to the score.

On that note, I'll chime in with how I judge a director's accomplishment.

A director's job is tone-control, which is a broad statement. What I mean by tone is everything--the story structure, the casting, the performances, the cinematography, the pacing, the atmosphere, the music, etc. When a movie is tone-consistent, which is incredibly rare (The Godfather and Citizen Kane come to mind), that's perfect direction.

I've always thought All the President's Men was a well-directed movie.

 

I agree, tone is a huge part of a director's job. I think the acclaim Burton is getting for Sweeney Todd is largely because he got the tone right, and on that particular piece, it was a challenge to translate an operatic Broadway show to the film screen. I think Schindler's List is a movie with perfect tone control. So is Dr. Strangelove.

Unfortunately, some directors are "tone deaf",

 

As for Verhoeven--I haven't seen either "Soldier of Orange" or "Black Book", both of which sound very interesting.

But he also directed "Showgirls"

 

Verhoeven is a very good director and satirist who has seen his career rise and fall in the space of the last few years. The financial and critical failure of SHOWGIRLS virtually doomed Verhoeven's career in Hollywood (although he would make the since critically reevaluated STARSHIP TROOPERS some two years later). He would go on to make the forgettable HOLLOW MAN before returning to his native Holland. His recent BLACK BOOK though ranks among the very best films of 2006 and a genuine triumph. It combines lurid spectacle, Hollywood-style melodrama, and contemporary action violence to a strangely moving, quietly devastating effect. On the success of that film, he's finally getting offers from Hollywood again, albeit strange ones not particularly well-suited to his unique talents (THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR sequel?). But even if you don't like the cartoonish and satirical SHOWGIRLS, you can always fall back on films like ROBOCOP, SOLDIER OF ORANGE, ZWARTBOEK, TOTAL RECALL, and STARSHIP TROOPERS, films which form the backbone of an extremely solid filmmography. Verhoeven's place on this list shouldn't be nearly as controversial as it might be; certainly less controversial than Pakula's.

 

The only Verhoeven movie I've seen is Starship Troopers, but what a FUN movie.

 

Why doesn't he stick to Europe?

 

On the basis of robocop and ST I'd say we don't want him.

Still Soldier of Orange I want to see.