Top 25 Film Directors

[Bold Rover]

Given a choice, I'd prefer The Godfather to Once Upon A Time, but that doesn't make the latter a bad film. We're comparing two masterpieces and each can take his pick.

Thoroughly enjoying Albino's essays on each director - you should explore writing for money.

Only thing I'd change about the countdown would be to speed it up slightly.

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

"Weak charicterization"

Absolute and utter drivel. I wrote a list and forgot to send it in but Leone was on it on the basis of OUATIA. I prefer it to The Godfather but they're both masterpieces in their own right.

[The OP]

Yup weak characterization. Any characters other than Noodles, Max and Deborah are basically underdeveloped non-entities and the women aside from Deborah are basically all whores.

Max, Noodles and Deborah are fairly well established in the childhood scenes but as the film wears on their actions become totally inconsistent with their established character. There's a shocking rape after a rather silly date scene, however the subject doesn't really come up again. The character who carries it out shows no remorse and the victim doesn't really seem to be affected enough to be holding a grudge (or even to be arsed mentioning it) when they meet up some years later. Another character takes to yelling maniacally whenever people call him crazy for some unexplained reason and, despite being an infamous gangster, he becomes a famous politician. He MacGuffins the rapey character back to reality - apparently this other character has basically just been doing nothing other than waiting for this for 20-odd years - for some flimsy and nonsensical reasons involving enemies and a garbage truck.

It looks great, but (imo obviously) masterpiece it ain't. It actually makes me think of Peter Griffin's line about The Godfather - "It insists upon itself". Unusually for a Leone film, even the score doesn't really work. The use of 'Yesterday' at one point is particularly heavy-handed.

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

The bits about a character showing no remorse, the victim not being bothered and the subject not coming up again demonstrate you haven't actually understood the film or its characters at all. Not really big Serge's fault.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Yup weak characterization. Any characters other than Noodles, Max and Deborah are basically underdeveloped non-entities and the women aside from Deborah are basically all whores.

Max, Noodles and Deborah are fairly well established in the childhood scenes but as the film wears on their actions become totally inconsistent with their established character. There's a shocking rape after a rather silly date scene, however the subject doesn't really come up again. The character who carries it out shows no remorse and the victim doesn't really seem to be affected enough to be holding a grudge (or even to be arsed mentioning it) when they meet up some years later. Another character takes to yelling maniacally whenever people call him crazy for some unexplained reason and, despite being an infamous gangster, he becomes a famous politician. He MacGuffins the rapey character back to reality - apparently this other character has basically just been doing nothing other than waiting for this for 20-odd years - for some flimsy and nonsensical reasons involving enemies and a garbage truck.

It looks great, but (imo obviously) masterpiece it ain't. It actually makes me think of Peter Griffin's line about The Godfather - "It insists upon itself". Unusually for a Leone film, even the score doesn't really work. The use of 'Yesterday' at one point is particularly heavy-handed.

Sorry, mate, but IMHO masterpiece it most certainly is. In the proper version, of course. Warner Bros. should have hung their heads in shame at the butchery they inflicted on this movie.

Of course the main characters are more developed than the supporting cast - that's why they're the main characters. As I said originally, a long watch, but ultimately very rewarding.

As for your criticism of the score, there I really do take exception. Morricone does a great job of producing appropriate backing no matter what the time frame - repeating various melodies and themes in era-specific styles. Which of the occurrences of "Yesterday" did you find heavy-handed?

Perhaps the problem some posters are having with this movie is, for me, one of its strengths. Leone allows it to stretch out at times, and the lack of story progression could, I can understand, be frustrating. For me, it just adds to the immersion.

I still love the first couple of Godfathers, mind - just in a different way.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

The bits about a character showing no remorse, the victim not being bothered and the subject not coming up again demonstrate you haven't actually understood the film or its characters at all. Not really big Serge's fault.

Kind of my thoughts, as well. Hence why I was wondering which version of the film he'd seen - because suggesting he hadn't paid attention or hadn't understood the story would be rude.

[Co.Down Hibee]

Thoroughly enjoying Albino's essays on each director - you should explore writing for money.

Only thing I'd change about the countdown would be to speed it up slightly.

Agree fully with the 1st point but I think it's good to have some space in the countdown so people can debate as we are seeing with OUTIA.

[The OP]

The bits about a character showing no remorse, the victim not being bothered and the subject not coming up again demonstrate you haven't actually understood the film or its characters at all. Not really big Serge's fault.

Responses with some sort of basis tend to carry more weight an further a discussion more imo.

Really though, that's just one example. The second half is a bit of a mess generally - you know a piece of TV/film doesn't work when 'It was all a dream' theories start to surface to explain the illogicalities in the plot.

One instance of 'Yesterday' was used so I don't understand that question. It was incredibly on the nose and incredibly cloying, but in general I thought that the soundtrack was overdone, and either overly-melancholic or overly-sentimental. That was just the only time I felt like the tone was being set with a sledgehammer.

[Bold Rover]

Agree fully with the 1st point but I think it's good to have some space in the countdown so people can debate as we are seeing with OUTIA.

Fair point, CDH. I was being impatient!

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

Yesterday is used more than once in the film. More I read, the more I have to assume you've seen the butchered original release. If that's the case then the criticism is probably warranted, by all accounts it's shite.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Responses with some sort of basis tend to carry more weight an further a discussion more imo.

Really though, that's just one example. The second half is a bit of a mess generally - you know a piece of TV/film doesn't work when 'It was all a dream' theories start to surface to explain the illogicalities in the plot.

One instance of 'Yesterday' was used so I don't understand that question. It was incredibly on the nose and incredibly cloying, but in general I thought that the soundtrack was overdone, and either overly-melancholic or overly-sentimental. That was just the only time I felt like the tone was being set with a sledgehammer.

Just to pick up on another of your criticisms, and using the Coppola movie as comparison - where are the strong female characters in The Godfather? Diane Keaton could have delivered her lines in her sleep, her character was so vanilla, and the Italian actress (Simonetta Stefani?) playing Appolonia was simply a convenient plot device to make Sicily seem more than "he went off to hide, then came back". The entire Sicilian section, in fact, was massively under-prioritised. In the novel, it's pivotal to Michael's development into the man who can lead a Family.

Watching the Godfather having read the book, it becomes obvious that, while it is undoubtedly a great movie, it could have been an absolutely unforgettable film had it been given more space to develop.

You want to criticise lack of character development? Luca Brasi, Mo Green, Mama Corleone. No further questions, M'Lud.

Jees, you've got me picking holes in one of my favourite films, now.

[Ludo*1]

WhiteRoseKillie, on 02 Apr 2014 - 10:15, said:

. Watching the Godfather having read the book, it becomes obvious that, while it is undoubtedly a great movie, it could have been an absolutely unforgettable film had it been given more space to develop.

A film that is widely regarded as the best film ever made or at the very least, one of the best ever made isn't 'absolutely unforgettable'?

Having read the book, granted, they could have included a whole lot more but it's a masterpiece as is and is simply in a completely different league to OUTIA.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

A film that is widely regarded as the best film ever made or at the very least, one of the best ever made isn't 'absolutely unforgettable'?

Having read the book, granted, they could have included a whole lot more but it's a masterpiece as is and is simply in a completely different league to OUTIA.

I'm not saying it isn't a great film - I've already stated that it's one of my favourites. What I'm trying to get across is that, had it a longer running time, then many of the various sub-plots which the viewer has to take "as read" could have been clarified without in any way lessening the quality of the film. The whole Vegas side of things, for example, or Michaels time in Sicily.

Once Upon A Time... suffers unfairly in comparison, IMHO, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the studio absolutely butchered Leone's original film, so the initial box office/awards return was negligible. Secondly, gangsters (Hollywood style) are supposed to be Italian - especially when De Niro is the lead. Thirdly, the structure of the film requires the viewer to pay attention to events - it's far more nuanced than the standard gangster movie.

As I've said repeatedly, both are superb movies, but...

While the Godfather could have benefited (IMHO) from more time to develop the story, it is undeniable that shortening Once Upon A Time... ruined it.

[Co.Down Hibee]

I think to fully appreciate the Godfather you have to read the book really ,as mentioned the characters aren't fully explored in the movie .

[Albino Rover]

14. Danny Boyle

Here we have one of the great British movie makers working today, a truly unpredictable director with an outstanding, eclectic record of films. He has excelled time and time again in a range of styles and genres, bringing originality to everything he touches, and the work he's producing in his mid-fifties is every bit as fresh and inventive as it was twenty years ago.

Visually his films are always full of contrast, intense energy and exciting camera work. Right from his trademark unusual opening credits, he never goes for the obvious- he's a believer that the hard way is the right way, and although he's a little bit older than the typical "Generation X" directors, his films embody that same creative spirit, but with a dimension of emotional depth and naturalism that take them to a more immediately relatable level. He's also one of the directors who really values the importance of sound and music in film; his selected soundtracks complement his visual creations almost as well as his films' specially-composed scores, and he's always been advanced in the use of new special sound effects, most recently Dolby Atmos.

He's a master of thrills and fast-paced action but what's central to his films is always the human aspect, the idea of context and cause and effect. He captures the action but always invites us to look at the bigger picture, giving all his films an important sense of perspective and a strong emotional line.

Danny Boyle is one of many filmmakers who were originally intended to join the priesthood, but as a teenager he discovered drama, and directing, which came naturally to him. He noted the similarities with priesthood, namely "poncing around, telling people what to think". Boyle studied drama at Bangor University and after graduating worked for several theatre companies, eventually directing productions for the Royal Shakespeare Company. Throughout the 1980s he was a very successful theatre director, but he had found a new level of inspiration from the mind-blowing cinema of the '70s, and although his live productions were impressive, by then he was being spurred on by a different medium.

One of Boyle's personal obsessions is with directors' first films; he's gone on record several times as saying that the best stuff comes when the director doesn't know what they're doing, and after their first film they never come close to that feeling again. He worked on a number of British television projects in the late '80s and early '90s before getting to make that discovery, but after impressing with some of his T.V. movies for Channel 4, in 1994 he was given the chance to direct a film for the channel's own Film4 Productions.

There were immediate setbacks. For example, despite the film being set in Edinburgh, Boyle had to shoot most of it, including exterior shots, in Glasgow because the film was partly financed by a grant from the Glasgow Film Fund. They were so tight for cash that towards the end of its 30-day production, Boyle and his crew were selling the props and furniture they didn't need any more just to afford film stock, but he loved every minute of it and, after all the stress and struggle of editing, got the film finished.

That was Shallow Grave, an extremely dark film about three yuppie flatmates who to begin with are inseparable friends, but after covering up a corpse for financial gain transform into deceitful, backstabbing lunatics. The body count grows and the ensuing tensions put their friendship to dangerous tests. The film's plot is an ethical downward spiral but it remains darkly comic, and it's that combination that makes it a fascinating watch, right up to the closing set-piece.

Shallow Grave is one of the most successful ever debut films by a British director: for an independent film, made with such a limited budget and shot in 4 weeks it's remarkable in its complexity and range of shots. It was the best-selling British film and one of the biggest critical hits of the year, and when the producers asked Danny what he wanted to do next, he already had the answer.

His second film was another difficult, small-scale project, in fact budget constraints meant things like professional lighting and multiple takes were luxuries Boyle couldn't afford, and more than half of the interior scenes had to filmed in the abandoned Wills' cigarette factory in Glasgow. But the film was another instant hit, and along with Shallow Grave sparked a mini-new wave of British cinema, inspiring some of the young filmmakers coming through in the late 1990s to copy Boyle's style- they knew the words, but not the music.

Superficially Trainspotting is a story about addiction and the danger of drugs, but the film covers a massive range of themes outside of that, including changing society, the distant and dissipative nature of male friendships and the culture of Scotland, particularly Edinburgh, in the 1980s. Drugs, however, unsurprisingly took the forefront, and got the headlines. It was important to everybody that as well as being as true to the book as possible, the film was also honest about addiction and didn't pull any punches. Many people criticised the film as "pro-drug", because Boyle included scenes that illustrate the highs of heroin, which was a courageous thing to do, but he showed just as much bravery to use some very shocking, lasting images and sounds to show the horror of addiction. The film is also notable for one of the best young casts in British film history, most of whom were cast personally by Danny Boyle. Each of the players fits their role perfectly, and a few big careers came out of the film's home-grown ensemble.

Boyle himself believes making films should be a constant source of education, and he tries to almost learn from afresh with every project he works on, and (as well as the obvious reason,) that clearly played a part in his next decision. After two big hits in Britain, he began to get recognition from further afield, and moved to Hollywood.

His third film was A Life Less Ordinary, an over-the-top romantic comedy including mismatched lovers and angelic intervention; a very deliberate change in direction from his first two works. Even at the time of release it wasn't taken seriously, but it didn’t really take itself seriously, that was the point. Boyle took a risk and, although it has its moments, and lots of charm, the film has since been long forgotten. It was, however, a money-maker, and Boyle was allowed to scale up further to a big, expensive project for his next film.

He took his cast, led by Leonardo Di Caprio, and crew to Thailand to film his adaptation of Alex Garland’s microcosmic fantasy The Beach. The trouble in paradise adventure story is something of a cliché but the ideas are made original through the narrative: Boyle tells the story as a journey through the eyes of the protagonist, we see everything as he sees it and follow each dangerous step into the wild, occasionally even taking steps into the surreal, all from the point of view of the naive, impressionable, thrill-seeking American backpacker.

Like all his others, the film was a financial success but after making it Boyle began to question whether Hollywood was for him. He's since said that he prefers an environment where not everything is planned out, not everything is affordable and as the director he gets as much freedom and room for creativity as possible. After two films in America he returned to Britain and made a couple of T.V. movies, Strumpet and Vacuuming Completely Nude In Paradise, before going back to cinema.

For his next film he turned his hand to horror, but more importantly back to the lower-budget film, with the terrifying 28 Days Later. The film isn’t a mere zombie scare-fest but a tense and genuinely disturbing thriller, an allegorical political and social statement, and a character story about one of all Boyle’s films’ major themes- human survival. The biggest change he made with the film was shooting in digital, with smaller cameras, which as well as being much cheaper allowed more freedom of movement and a kinetic, almost frantic video look for the action scenes. The action is combined with several empty, serene daytime scenes of a nation at a standstill, which gives the film a creepy realism, and makes for a very uneasy watch, but the true horror comes when we realise the zombies are not the only monsters in the film.

Rather than reading scripts, Danny Boyle likes to meet the writer and make them read the script out loud to him, to get a clear idea what they want to do on screen. On his first 5 films he worked with only two different screenwriters, but when Frank Cottrell Boyce met him and read him his latest script, Boyle was sold straight away, and got to work on Millions, a tale about two children's interpretations of doing the right thing. Centred around the peurile fantasy of discovering a holdall full of cash, at its core Millions deals delicately with the emotions of the children as they move house and school, and cope with losing a parent, as well as, more subtly, the impact of the situation on the boys' father. Because it's told from a child's point of view everything is based on child logic, but like any good kids' film it works just as well for the grown-ups who take them to see it.

Boyle took 3 years before releasing his next film. It was one of his most expensive and ambitious to date, Sunshine, a space film just as much about the on-board politics as the world-saving mission. That in itself is nothing original but what stands out is the Danny Boyle factor that shines throughout the voyage to the Sun: to him, science fiction was a chance to create some extreme and powerful imagery, and realise of the size and importance of that kind of mission on a human level. The film, particularly the last act, split audiences but it was an awesome spectacle and, perhaps playing too much to the sci-fi fans and space geeks, a tribute to the genre.

By 2008, everyone across the British film scene admired Danny Boyle's endeavour but some were beginning to question whether he'd ever return to the heights of his early work. Then came Slumdog Millionaire, a contemporary Indian fairytale about a grown-up Mumbai street orphan who, as he is questioned and tortured between episodes of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?, reflects on the key moments of his life that gave him the answers. His dream isn't the money, he's trying to stay on T.V. as long as possible to try to reach his true love, and the more of his impoverished childhood he remembers, the more we yearn for the ultimate happy ending. One of the best things about the film is the importance of realism: no punches are pulled in showing us the reality of the lives of children like Jamal, both the freedom and joy of playing cricket barefoot on an airport runway and the mortal danger of kidnappers and religious war. On a cinematic level it captures everything great about Bollywood and Hollywood, with use of bright and saturated colours, lighting, music, costumes, and an exceptional display of camera work in a huge range of styles, and in the end after a rich emotional investment, it pays out more than it had to.

After Slumdog came another cinematic show-stopper, 127 Hours, a true story about a cocky explorer trapped in the middle of nowhere for five days, but essentially an examination of the value of life and, once more, the strength of the human spirit- this time not what it can achieve, but what it can endure. It's probably the hardest film Danny Boyle's made- to take a story set primarily in one small location with primarily one actor and make it as entertaining as he did it takes a very special level of skill and artistic vision.

After the release of 127 Hours, Boyle was the London Olympic Committee's first choice to be Artistic Director for the opening ceremony of the 2012 games and its filmed segments, Isles Of Wonder. He took the job and over the course of the next two years put together an epic stadium show which, like nothing before it, represented all the positives of Britain's rich history and its glorious present, from industry and innovation to culture and sport. With his budget and resources he was able to pool together the best of the United Kingdom's talent as well as numerous national heroes, and create and construct things that in ordinary theatre would have been impossible. Between stages of the design of the production he took a few long breaks, initially to return to theatre direction with the National Theatre's production of Frankenstein, and later to shoot his tenth feature film, Trance.

Trance is a psychological thriller, initially about an art heist where the art goes missing, but as the criminals search for the lost painting we meet a hypnotist, and delve deeper into the characters’ minds. In essence it's a kind of mystery film, with the conflicting motives and femme fatale aspect of film noir and the cold-blooded psyche and violence of the gangster film. At first it almost appears to contain all the clichés of a B-movie but nothing is as it first appears and things quickly escalate, all leading up to an unpredictable reveal, and wrapped up in some of Danny Boyle's most ambitious and exciting visual mastery, using lots of mirrors, coloured lighting and even trick photography to reflect the unknown and hint at the film's mysteries.

He recently went back to his Channel 4 roots to direct their T.V. feature Babylon, and despite some very interesting ideas including making a film in Africa, the possibility of an animation and even a musical, after over ten years of anticipation he has announced the imminent reunion of the Trainspotting cast and crew to finally adapt Porno.

His relentlessness and constant exploration over the last 20 years is unparalleled and his films vary in a great number of ways, but at the heart of all Boyle's work, as well as guaranteed entertainment and incredible technical accomplishment, is a sense of familiarity and honesty about human behaviour, society and everyday life which is clearly very important to him, and a respect for the audience.

Perhaps most important in opening his films up on a personal level is that nothing is off limits: Danny Boyle is the director who tells us it’s OK to have disgusting toilets and self-amputation in films, because - as well as perhaps a slight element of sick humour - those things expose the characters at their most personal and vulnerable, and although his films often take a step into the surreal, (the toilet scene in Trainspotting; Damian’s visions of the saints in Millions) those images emphasise real ideas, and what we see is what we get. That honesty translates directly from the director: whether he's reaching us from a spacecraft or an Edinburgh flat, Danny Boyle simply doesn't know how to patronise or talk down to his audience, and amongst the breathtaking visuals and cinematic experience there’s no pretence about the content, his films are what they are: bona-fide works of art from the brain of one of the geniuses of 21st century cinema.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Boyle is one of those directors who consistently gets the best out of the available resources, and as such deserves great respect. There's a lot of directors of whom you could say the same, though, which is why he coincidentally ended up at 14 in my list as well.

As AR says, one of the best things about his films is that he respects the audience's intelligence, and he certainly isn't scared of going a wee bit off-piste at times. He can also grab you with one high-impact shot - that single drop of blood in 28 Days Later...

I fear that Slumdog hasn't had the respect it deserves, despite the massive success the movie enjoyed. I mean respect as a superb mix of emotions, suspense, romance, drama and everything else that makes a true classic. A fucking great movie.

Trainspotting will always be the film Boyle is remembered for, and that's no bad thing. A ground-breaking movie that mixed the horror of addiction with brutal violence, the obsession of film buffs(!), the trials of friendship and loyalty (to people and drugs) and the sheer hilarity of shite-covered sheets.

Millions I enjoyed, as I have a soft spot for the "eyes of a child" type of story, and he carried the whole thing off beautifully. Shallow Grave was an absolute cracker, and I recommend it to any who haven't seen it. 28 Days Later was just what the doctor ordered in horror at the time - zombies that can get out of first gear!* Cracking story, told at a superbly-nuanced pace.

The only one of his movies which left me cold was The Beach, which I think is because of having read the book first - well, that and a sneaking feeling that Di Caprio wasn't the actor everybody thought he was. Obviously young Leo has gone on to make many good movies, but for me this performance wasn't good enough for the story. Basically, Boyle thought Richard (narrator/main character) was seeing different stuff than that which I got from the book. It's by no means a bad movie, but just didn't work for me.

*Technically, maybe not zombies, but scary flesh-eating fuckers all the same.

[AberdeenBud]

Boyle has certainly built up some body of work already.

Think I've found virtually every one of his films interesting in a different way.

The variety in his career and the amount of genres he's traversed is astounding.

Wasn't in my 10, but probably should've been.

[Co.Down Hibee]

Yep in hindsight I may have overlooked him,

[EdgarusQPFC]

Boyle has certainly built up some body of work already.

Think I've found virtually every one of his films interesting in a different way.

The variety in his career and the amount of genres he's traversed is astounding.

Wasn't in my 10, but probably should've been.

this

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Come on, AR - let's have another one! Preferably one we don't all agree on - they're the ones that spark off a bit of a debate.