about contributors submissions book series advertising contests tour dates Mixed Media PopMatters Picks
|
|
Visionary Valhalla: Film’s Future Exalted Ones[6 August 2007] Who will the film fans and cinephiles 50 years from now praise as their undeniable masters of the medium? Such a determination may be much more complicated than you think.
By Bill GibronPopMatters Contributing Editor With loss, there usually comes reflection. One buries the grief long enough to see where they stand, either socially, personally, or ideologically, depending on the situation. So it’s within the context of last week’s passing of motion picture giants Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni that this latest round of considered contemplation occurs. It’s been shocking to see the lack of respect given to these undeniable masters by members of the so-called blogosphere. What’s been equally surprising is the number of people picked out as being actually worthy of posthumous praise. The usual suspects have all been mentioned—Scorsese, Coppola, Lucas, and Spielberg—while a few have ventured outside the mainstream to herald Jodoworsky, Godard, and Herzog. Again, such aesthetic introspection is not unexpected. It is part of the passing of time, connected to the process of perspective and consensus. Yet there remains a sticking point in trying to determine the future exalted greats—many have already been predetermined. Indeed, from the list above, it’s safe to say that everything up and through the early ‘80s is pretty well covered. Certainly there are names that can be added to the list—Wenders, Von Trier—and arguments over the aforementioned conclusions, but with a wealth of significant cinema behind them, those offered as possible icons will hold a special place in the cinephile’s awareness come obituary time. Some may even gain the status reserved for individuals like the ones lost on 30 July. But the real quandary comes in trying to decipher who among the pre- and post-millennial mavericks we see today will remain important enough to warrant mention 30, 40 or even 50 years from now. Certainly, such a determination is fraught with flaws, but in looking over the possible choices, we can reflect on the state of cinema in the 21st century, and who, if anyone, will remain its ballyhooed bellwether.  Michelangelo Antonioni The main issues in coming up with such a list are both generational and subjective. For example, Bergman and Antonioni were celebrated for movies they made far off in their past; in some cases, 20 to 40 years before their death. Granted, their influence was such that it seemed like they were ever present in the medium, but neither had created anything of cinematic significance since the mid-‘80s. So in using a similarly styled concept of consensus, our future icons would be creating their proposed masterworks right now, during one of the least significant and stagnant eras in motion picture creativity ever recorded. In addition, they will need to be filmmakers who forge a specific style, or concrete artistic ethic—a vision that truly challenges the medium’s status quo. Again, in a period where focus groups, preview screenings, and creativity by committee occurs, that seems next to impossible to uncover.  Quentin Tarantino directs Vanessa Ferlito Of course, there are exceptions to all generalizations. In this case, the first name that instantly comes to mind (almost instinctually) is Quentin Tarantino. Scoff at the suggestion all you want, but back when both Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were media mandated darlings, everyone wanted to emulate this homage happy video store trained bad boy. We in the critical community more than helped, instantly boiling down his entire oeuvre into a single shorthand assessment. It’s the rational behind any review that uses the term “Tarantino-esque” to describe a film’s approach, a script’s dialogue, or a narrative’s twisty approach. Through the underrated Jackie Brown and the brilliant Kill Bill movies, he’s managed the almost unthinkable: his sphere of influence and inspiration has only increased. At 44, he has several more decades in the business to further redefine, and repair, his image as a hyperactive film geek, and as his 2007 segment from Grindhouse (Death Proof) proved, he’s lost none of his acknowledged acumen.  Director Sam Raimi on the set of Spider-Man 3. Another similarly important genre-bending visionary is Sam Raimi. One of the few names featured here that can claim significance in two separate cinematic categories—the horror film and the action epic—the man behind the Evil Dead efforts and the Spider-man films is a bigger motion picture power than you may know. Outside of his stellar business sense, the evidence is everywhere. Danny Devito lifts whole stunt setpieces in The War of the Roses from Raimi’s “object in motion” mannerisms, be they flying plates…or eyeballs. An even bigger name, Stephen Spielberg, employs a similar standard of controlled chaos for his Hook. All throughout the late ‘80s, filmmakers who were frustrated by how to bring their diabolical ideas to the screen looked to the auspicious outsider and mimicked his moves. It was only a matter of time before Hollywood would step in and steal him away. The comic book superhero phenomenon can be traced directly to his definitive webslinger epics.  Alfonso Cuarón on the set of Children of Men. Outside America, Alfonso Cuarón seems destined to deliver on his “so far, so fantastic” motion picture promise. If one traced a line between The Little Princess, Y Tu Mamá También, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and last year’s monumental Children of Men, it’s clear his career trajectory is headed straight for the stratosphere. His only problem may be one of nationality. Right now, Mexican filmmakers are, forgive the term, hot. Who knows where they’ll be in another two decades. Likewise, Guillermo Del Toro could also be counted as part of a lasting Latino contingent. Outside his attempts at mainstream acceptance (and the decided lukewarm response to same) his proposed wartime trilogy, begun with The Devil’s Backbone and continued via the heartbreakingly brilliant Pan’s Labyrinth, guarantees him a place on legacy’s list—at least, for the time being.  Peter Jackson
And then there’s Peter Jackson. It may be hard for Star Wars fans to accept it, but here’s the actual reigning deity of the sci-fi/fantasy realm. From the gore-drenched delights of Bad Taste and Braindead to the grossly overlooked ghost romp The Frighteners, he was well on his way to becoming a horror heavyweight. Oddly enough, he upset said trend by taking on the real life crime drama Heavenly Creatures, and even worked in categories as unique as the family film (his freakish Meet the Feebles) and the mock documentary (Forgotten Silver). But with the chance to take on Tolkien’s beloved books, he literally reinvigorated the artform. Argue all you want to about the validity of his Lord of the Rings trilogy, but they remain the spectacular result of one man’s infinite imagination filtered through a pure love of making movies. Not only do they stand as sizable contributions to the overall effectiveness of the medium, they instantly remind us why we fell in love with the movies in the first place.  Paul Thomas Anderson So, undoubtedly, Jackson, Raimi, and Tarantino will be saluted as they shuffle off this mortal coil. The evidence is already there, and their value is so strong that it’s only diminishable in pieces, not some overall negative assessment. No matter the black marks, someone will come along and set the record straight again. Within their proposed peer group, however, some names are a little harder to reconcile. Paul Thomas Anderson appears as the heir apparent to Robert Altman’s school of cinema. He was even onset, for insurance purposes, when the mighty American auteur delivered his final film, 2006’s A Prairie Home Companion. It’s hard to deny his output—Sydney (a.k.a. Hard Eight), Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and even Punch-Drunk Love—and yet, one gets the distinct impression that we’ve yet to see his very best work. When you consider the quality of what’s already arrived, that’s a rather compelling statement.  David Fincher David Fincher is another filmmaker with a specific vision and recognizable design. Yet will he be a name, or a novelty, four decades from now? Will anyone still care for Se7en’s dark undercurrent of distress, Zodiac’s symphonic like structure, or Panic Room’s Kubrick-like deconstruction of suspense? Granted, there’s always the unforgettable ferocity of Fight Club, but as a drum tight testament to the ‘90s, will anyone in 2050 respond? Chris Nolan also demands recognition, but some may be confused as to what the accolades are actually rewarding. The man behind the immensely successful relaunch of the Batman franchise has only made four other full length features. Now, undoubtedly, two are stunning examples of creative craft (Memento and The Prestige) but how many film fans will remember these amazing movies come future reconsideration? Is Nolan, perhaps, destined to only be remembered as one of several men, including Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher, who tweaked the Dark Knight’s timeless mantle? The list goes on and on. Rob Zombie aims to reinvent schlock in his own gargoyle a go-go image. Yet so far, he’s only managed to make his House of 1000 Corpse’s sequel The Devil’s Rejects, work on a broader than b-movie level. It’s something that Wes Anderson is accused of, as well. Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic—his translation of film’s language into literary conventions is frequently criticized for being the same cinematic statement remade over and over again. Spike Jonze also requires mentioning, yet his limited output (two major motion pictures, both with Charlie Kaufman as the main visionary) argues for someone more whimsical than worthwhile. It’s an accusation Michel Gondry can cop to, as well. And what about the names few have heard of? Will scholars several years from now name check Fernando Meirelles, Ki-Duk Kim, Nacho Cerda, or Wong Kar Wai?  Joel and Ethan Coen Some could argue that it’s unfair to limit the discussion to a specific age group. But remember the initial setup: Bergman and Antonioni made their mark decades before their death. They were already legends when they died. So in framing this exercise in forward thinking, we unfortunately have to leave out the easily understandable—and defendable. At 53 and 50, respectively, Joel and Ethan Coen could claim part of this overall consideration of classicism, and yet they remain a clear cult consideration. They’re unbelievably brilliant—it’s the rest of the world that has to catch up with their genius. Falling right behind would be Pedro Almodovar. Perhaps singlehandedly resuscitating Spanish moviemaking for world consumption, this dazzling social satirist and heartbreaking humanist will definitely maintain his mythos. Probably the only true artist working in film today, David Lynch also has to drop out. At 61, he’s definitely part of the ‘70s post-modern mavericks, though the 20 years between ’86 and ’06 saw him reach an astonishing creative zenith. John Woo is in the very same position, as well. He was part of the Hong Kong martial arts scene before many of his supporters were out of short pants. But it wasn’t until 1986’s A Better Tomorrow that his talent for blood ballet was finally recognized. Of course, on the opposite end of said spectrum is Terry Gilliam. At 67, most would argue that his best days are far behind him. The critical community has dismissed or marginalized most of his films since 1995’s 12 Monkeys, and commercially, he’s nothing more than an eccentric seeking (and not getting) the public’s approval and attention.  Spike Lee Spike Lee is undoubtedly an important name in the remarkable renaissance of black filmmaking, but by reaching the magical mark of 50, he’s forced to find refuge in the ‘already considered’ category. And it’s a shame. With Do the Right Thing, Malcolm X, Bamboozled, and the stellar documentaries 4 Little Girls and When the Levees Broke as part of his resume, he definitely demands his status. Yet there is more to his persona—a piercing political focus and a relative unease with the polarizing mainstream—that could keep his career from being fully acknowledged. At this point, the remaining possibilities pale in comparison. Everyone will have their suggestions, and obvious examples like Jim Jarmusch, Steven Soderbergh, and Michael Mann may still have recognizable relevance in 2007. But it’s clear that their catalog is intermittent and incomplete, and all three have equally shown that a single misstep (Dead Man, Full Frontal, Ali) can derail a path toward a permanent pedestal in the artform’s Hall of Fame.  Jean Luc-Godard Perhaps age shouldn’t play a part in all this. After all, anyone listed here could, God forbid, be taken from us in the blink of an eye. But that’s what makes time so telling. When Jean Luc-Godard finally merges with the infinite, it will be his rebellious New Wave spirit, not the amiable films he’s created in the last few years (In Praise of Love, Our Music) that define his reputation. Likewise, if someone like Darren Aronofsky was cut down today, it would be difficult to place him within the pantheon—not with Pi, Requiem for a Dream, and The Fountain as his sole significant credits. So it’s apparent that career in combination with some other element of endearment make up the final determination. And let’s not forget the lack of such a unified sense of appreciation. The nu-media cannot and will not thrive on such conformity. So the hurdles toward historical importance become that much more imposing. All we really have now is conjecture. Avoiding the givens and going out on a limb, it’s safe to assume that the next step in motion picture development as a medium will probably play an important part in the process. James Cameron—a name, oddly enough, not mentioned here (and with good reason)—promises that his 2009 spectacle Avatar will redefine the use of CGI. John Lasseter (also MIA) hopes to take Disney back to the days of meaningful first run animated features which rely more on nuance and less on novelty. Technology, of course, could definitely tweak things. The Wachowski Brothers (losing a mention thanks to two mediocre Matrix sequels) have been known to push the visual envelope a little, and old hat Robert Zemeckis has been giving motion capture photorealism a run for its box office potential. If all the public wants is more and more eye candy, Tinsel Town will be happy to give it to them, resulting in a rejection of the old school ideas of characterization, mise-en-scene, and overall editorial expressiveness. And so then where does that leave this discussion? If one could hijack a time machine and make the jump to 2050, what would they see? Would the local arthouse be hawking the McG film festival as the latest incarnation of Turner Classic Movies features recently determined “Essentials” like James McTeigue’s V for Vendetta, Danny Boyle’s Sunshine and Guy Ritchie’s Snatch? Perhaps the works of someone as marginalized as Kurt Wimmer (Equilibrium, Ultraviolet) or Frank Coraci (The Wedding Singer, Click) will be the current cultural obsession. Heck, there may even be hope for Uwe Boll. All joking aside, perhaps what we’re seeing is a certain sense of closure. Maybe movie-making has gone beyond the ability for a single individual to rewrite the rulebook. The next time someone suggests that, in losing a famous name, we will ‘never see their kind again, anytime soon’, perhaps we should take that as definitive, not just as a mere gesture of respect. There is a wealth of talent out there, working both inside and outside the limits of commercial cinema. If any of them end up in visionary Valhalla, it may not have been a matter of time before their work achieved such status: it may have been that a miracle happened.  Ingmar Bergman 
  Since deciding to employ his underdeveloped muse muscles over five years ago, Bill has been a significant staff member and writer for three of the Web’s most influential websites: DVD Talk, DVD Verdict and, of course, PopMatters. He also has expanded his own web presence with Bill Gibron.com a place where he further explores creative options. It is here where you can learn of his love of Swindon’s own XTC, skim a few chapters of his terrifying tome in the making, The Big Book of Evil, and hear samples from the cassette albums he created in his college music studio, The Scream Room. |
Now on PopMatters
Columns
Queer, Isn't It?: For Your Consideration: Trophies for Queers The Difference Engine: Electronic Music: The Invader and Infiltrator
Blogs
Moving Pixels: Of Philosophy in ‘Bioshock 2’: Some Words from the Devs Mixed Media: Phantogram - Eyelid Movies (new album / stream) Notes from the Road: Yeasayer + Javelin + Class Actress: 9.Feb.2010 - Brooklyn
Music
:. Sade: Soldier of Love :. Fear Factory: Mechanize :. The Brunettes: Paper Dolls :. AM: Future Sons and Daughters :. Locksley: Be in Love :. Little Girls: Concepts :. Reigning Sound: Love and Curses
Books
:. I Want to Be Left Behind: Finding Rapture Here On Earth by Brenda Peterson :. I See a Darkness by Richard Kleist
News
:. The once and future Sims :. ‘The Phantom,’ ‘A Serious Man’ top list of latest Blu-ray releases :. Leno’s prime-time send-off to be departure from tradition :. INTERVIEW:Larry Holmes and Joe Frazier recall when they were ‘Facing Ali’ :. Sony’s two-volume ‘Bad Girls of Film Noir’ sets bring them out of the shadows
|
Comments
Good article. It’s nice to hear someone criticizing the darlings of film today in terms of facing the realities of artistic prime. Who remembers Faulkner’s later books such as ‘Intruder in the Dust’ or Shakespeare’s later works such as ‘Winter’s Tale’? For honorable mention John Carpenter (They Live, The Thing) and Shinichiro Watanbe (Cowboy Bebop).
I do find the question of what will be praised in 50 years a bit odd though. The medium of traditional movies seems to be winding itself blissfully apart and being replaced by other arts in the public eye. The question of what, if any, artistic merit video games will achieve is far from answered at so early a stage in their existence while film itself seems to be finally moving on to the superior HBO multi-episode season. As good as the ‘Lord of the Rings’ were as films, one can’t help but wonder what they could have been as a 12 episode epic. What I’m trying to say is, I wonder if people will be talking about films at all in 50 years.
Comment by L.B. Jeffries from The South — August 6, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Nailing the current cinematic crop - good deal. I am praying for the Coens to deliver this Fall. I mean I sat with a plastered on grin like Alvy has in ANNIE HALL when that Catskills hack is doing his material.
For the record - pro Simpsons /anti Family Guy
Pro P.T. Anderson / Anti Wes Anderson
etc.
- Dan
http://filmbabble.blogspot.com/
Comment by Dan Cook Johnson — August 7, 2007 @ 12:58 am
You cover most of the filmmakers that come to mind, but I’d also like to add Wong Kar Wai, and even Sofia Coppola who is quickly becoming one of my favourite working filmmakers.
Comment by Justine from Montreal, QC — August 7, 2007 @ 1:20 am
Mr. Gibron, nice way to commemorate Bergman’s passing. Am impressed by the astonishing breadth of your list. The only name I wish you had included is David O. Russell. He may be a loud, foul mouth looney on the set, but his films exhibit a range and ambition far outside other mainstream film makers. For my money, there’s not one dud in his admittedly short filmography. Am very glad you mention Rob Zombie. His films may correspond with certain fundamental aspects of the horror genre, but on closer inspection I think he’s somehow using those conventions to make larger statements. HOUSE OF A 1000 CORPSES is a dark fairy tale about a culture that’s dead and eating itself, and THE DEVIL’S REJECTS contemplates a world where both the good and bad guys are morally bankrupt.
Comment by Nick Faust from Evansville, Indiana — August 7, 2007 @ 1:44 am
Great article. Good to know someone out there still cares about this art-medium that is quickly transforming itself into solely a money machine and not an art medium.
Some names not mentioned in the article: Sam Mendes I think proved himself to be “heading up there” with Road to Perdition and American Beauty. Bernardo Bertolucci is well established over the years with Last Tango in Paris and Il Conformista. Milos Forman has been out of the picture since 1999 (until last year) but I cant see One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest or Amadeus being forgotten in 2050.
Of course, not forgetting Woody Allen.
Comment by Ali from UAE — August 7, 2007 @ 2:21 am
A very interesting article indeed. I have only one little objection. You mention Dead Man as a misstep for Jarmush. I think you let your own subjectivity get in the way on this one. You might not have liked the film, but many regard it as one of his very best. I would actually consider Dead Man to be his masterpiece. And anyways, a single misstep, or even two or three, has never kept a director from being included in the parthenon of filmmakers.
Comment by Geoffrey from Santa Barbara, CA — August 7, 2007 @ 3:08 am
I think you are looking at this the wrong way. Names like David Chase, David Simon, David Milch, Larry David (that’s a lot of Davids), and Ron Moore are who people are going to be talking about in 50 years. Television has quickly superseded the artistic ambition of film, and these showrunners/producers/writers will be the auteurs remembered from this generation.
And by the way, not mentioning Woody Allen borders on criminal. After the brilliant Match Point, he still may have quite a bit left in him.
Comment by Will from Long Beach, CA — August 7, 2007 @ 3:32 am
It was a good article but I gotta say that it’s fairly uninspired. These directors you list off are the directors every film student lists off to pretend they actually have some insight. Yeah, Spike Lee and Tarentino will be exhalted as directors but who’s grandfather doesn’t know that? Where are the real treasures? Where’s Todd Solondz? Hal Hartley? Why didn’t you list George Lucas or Spielberg? I won’t go further but maybe next time a little inspiration could be used to write an article that not every college student in America could write.
Comment by Jake from VT — August 7, 2007 @ 5:00 am
Agree w/ Jake from VT.
Nice, easy, unchallenging picks. I am prompted to respond to your by-the-books, film-school-robot drudgery with a response similar to that of Jack Black to John Cusack in High Fidelity, when Cusack rounds out his “Top 5 Track Ones Side Ones” list with Massive Attack’s “Radiation Ruling the Nation.”
JB: “A song with new classic status snuck into a list of old safe ones - very PUSSY!”
Of course, the delineation here is that you didn’t sneak anything in, you just went for obvious ones. Boo. How about thinking about WOMEN? How about simply offering consideration to the fact that opinions and people may change, may even (gasp) evolve to a point where merit is regarded for people’s ability to pioneer, and not simply make money? RAIMI?! Your slavery to the current societal preference for white dudes is pretty shameful. You could *attempt* to think outside the box.
Boo, once again. Boo. You seem like a smart guy. But you have failed your readers, and yourself.
Comment by Eric from NYC — August 7, 2007 @ 8:25 am
Where is Alexander Payne? “Election,” “Citizen Ruth,” “About Schmidt” and “Sideways,” and not a misstep among them.
Comment by kentvictor from Los Angeles — August 7, 2007 @ 9:40 am
He makes great points but I think Brad Bird deserves some sort of mention, I mean he’s pretty much re-invinting the animated movie making it into more than just a cartoon
Comment by Dane Jerabek from New York City — August 7, 2007 @ 9:42 am
Eric from NYC—
Aside from the nauseating reliance on ad hominem attacks on Mr. Gibron, you’re lack of any meaningful contribution to this thread is disgusting. Both you and Jake miss the point of the article—who will culture remember in 50 years? Most likely, they will remember the obvious ones. Look to any sports discussion of future hall of famers. All the players are known commodities. Rare is the sportswriter that would pick a non-obvious choice because non-obvious choices are likely to be included in a discussion of long-term recognition.
As for griping about the lack of inclusion of women and minorities, Mr. Gibron cites the current wave of Mexican auteurs, Almodovar, and Spike Lee. In terms of women, who would you suggest? I think Sophia Coppolla is more likely to be remembered for screwing up Godfather III. Who else? Penny Marshall? Film making is a male-dominated field, and Mr. Gibron is not responsible for that unfortaunte reality.
Also: “High Fidelity” looked down on the characters you cite. The message of the movie is that their characters are arrogant, immature, and pathetic. The movie tracks their growth as people. You may want to rewatch it.
Comment by Jason Fernandez from Washington, D.C. — August 7, 2007 @ 9:51 am
Great article! Though I must agree with the comment of kentvictor from Los Angeles. I hope that Alexander Payne was omitted accidentally and not on purpose.
IMHO Richard Linklater also deserves mention.
Comment by Eduard Mouget from Trinidad and Tobago — August 7, 2007 @ 10:15 am
WHERE IS TERRENCE MALICK IN THIS DISCUSSION? lynch is the only film artist? get the hell out of here.
if peter jackson and darren aronofksy deserve mentions, so do these folks: Inarritu, Lynne Ramsay, David Gordon Green, Mike Leigh, Ken Loach, Michael Moore, Bela Tarr, Kiarostami, Errol Morris, Hayao Miyazaki, Todd Haynes, Lars von Trier, Gus van Sant.
jason fernandez,
film cannot be judged like sports. sports stars are given merit based on statistics and results which are immediately ultimate. When a player has a great season, he has a great season, and that is that. When a filmmaker makes a good film, it can take some time before that film is recognized as “good” (Wizard of Oz, 2001, countless others).
Mr. Gibron,
you say today the wachowski brothers won’t be remembered because of two mediocre matrix follow-ups…yet yesterday you named the matrix trilogy the 7th best of all time. what gives?
the term tarantino-esque makes me sick. it’s a poor reflection on the laziness of our society, and if critics use it, it is because they are trying to put it in terms their audience will understand. his contribution to cinema today is undeniable, bringing exploitative schlock into our “art house,” but anything tarantino-esque was someoneelse-esque before that.
Woody Allen, though I think he should be an example of how 20 bad films can ruin a legacy, deserves a mention. Whoever said Match Point was brilliant…I hope you haven’t seen Crimes and Misdemeanors so that I can just forgive you.
Comment by bob jones from bob jones university — August 7, 2007 @ 10:46 am
It’s very difficult to judge these things from our time, but I think it’s much more likely that very few Americans will be remembered from this era as pushing the art of the film medium forward.
It’s much more likely that the people who will be remembered in 50 years will be people that most moviegoers today (for a number of reasons, including economics and broken film distribution models) have never heard of, or only heard of in passing.
Quite frankly, most American movies released these days are rather forgettable, with a few notable exceptions. Spielberg, Cameron and Lucas will likely be remembered more for their economic and technological prowess than their artistic contribution to the medium. Jackson will likely be in the same camp. Ridley Scott will probably only be remembered for Blade Runner, and maybe Alien.
But history frequently seems to remember those who worked out of the mainstream, or were often at odds with it. (Orson Welles would be an example of this, as would the French New Wave.)
And one must remember that Antonioni’s films were much derided, jeered at and booed by most of the critical establishments of their day, and championed by only a few. Current popularity isn’t really much of an indicator of lasting value (and at times can mean the opposite - the work is so in line with the values of its own time that it has little lasting value).
So, here is a list of a few filmmakers that I think will be seen as major figures in 50 years.
Hou Hsiao-hsien
May be a bit old for this list, since he’s pushing 60, but he’ll definitely be seen as one of the greatest filmmakers of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Pedro Costa
-Almost nobody has heard of this guy, but his work in Portugal is both groundbreaking and classical, and I’m willing to bet that people will come to see him as a master in due time.
Wong Kar-wai
-Will likely be remembered for his earlier career up through ‘In the Mood for Love’ unless he breaks out of the creative rut he seems to be in.
David Fincher
-Zodiac is a HUGE step forward for Fincher. If he continues in his new, more mature direction, he’ll definitely be seen as one of the greats of American cinema in 50 years time; his earlier films will likely be seen as somewhat minor (with the possible exception of Se7en).
Gus Van Sant
-Gerry will be seen as a major turning point in his career, which has really had an artistic resurgence with Elephant, Last Days and Paranoid Park. If he continues like this, he’ll definitely be seen as a major figure.
Pixar
Will be seen much like Disney from the 40’s, for sure. Brad Bird and John Lasseter’s names will be thrown around a lot, for good reason.
Paul Thomas Anderson
More likely than most of the other filmmakers named to be seen as someone who really broke artistic ground.
Quentin Tarantino
Much as I may not like it at times, he’s in the canon.
There will of course be others, but probably not most of the names mentioned in the article. They’ll probably be more remembered as having made a few interesting movies, but nothing groundbreaking.
A final thing to remember is that influential doesn’t necessarily mean praised and remembered. Michael Bay is probably one of the most influential filmmakers in the US, but I’m not sure anyone’s going to be happy about that in 50 years.
Comment by Jason Murphy from New Jersey — August 7, 2007 @ 10:54 am
— PopMatters sponsor —
While getting enraged at a commerative article stating obvious matters of opinion is foolish, I can not help but comment upon the placing of Jarmusch’s Dead Man as a misstep that derailed his career as a huge failue of judgement, or even awareness of critical reception. On the issue of judgment, I and many young people I know view Dead Man as one of the crowning works of 90’s american cinema. It one of the few movies of a decade of pastiche and stylistic fetish to tap into the existential emptiness of the end of our century. It is dissapointing that a fun, witty director like Tarantino, who’s greatest achievement has been to entertain us is immeadiately considered canonical (in years he will be remembered in the same breath as Lucas or lesser directors who tapped into some public nostalgia and sold lots of tickets, but aimed for little else), while formally experimental directors such as Jarmusch, David Lynch, and Wes Anderson, directors who look both to the past of film (independent american film, surrealist film, and european art cinema respectively) and forward towards an understanding of our relationship with cinema (achieving a discomfort by stripping down to a minimalism of the frame and shot in an era of extreem excess, tapping into our fetishes of the film image, and searching for ways out of modern anguish by the return to creativity and childhood storytelling) All deal with cinema in ways far more sophisticated than any of the instant canon, the directors such as Tarantino, or the Cohen brothers, who emphasized style to sell themselves as canonical, who were victims to influence rather than in conversation with them. Sure they sell tickets, but I think in a less materialistic and superficial era, where it is not just a matter of a hedonistic culture looking for entertainment, but a culture that has more disruption and is searching for answers, will turn away from Hollywood’s selfmarketed canon to the real artists of the medium. At least I hope so, everytime I see Tarantino celebrated as a great director I almost feel as much pain as when I see Reagan remembered as a good president. Moving beyond the figures celebrated in your article, well obvioulsy Malick is infinately important to many a young filmmaker or DP, I think anyone shooting nature strives for his trancendental intimacy and questioning. Sofia Coppola for instance. And you also exclude voices from beyond the typical white straight male dominated industry. Obviously filmmakers such as Jane Champion and Sally Potter are brillaint and immensily important. Same for Todd Haynes or Charles Burnett. Your cannon I think is blinded by ticket sales and marketing, which is foolish, and drawing an example from rock music, remember how few people listened to the Velvet Underground in the sixties, and how they have become the most seminal band of all time. Artists, and you are constructing this canon as those whom filmmakers in a the future will look back towards as inspiration, don’t follow the wills of Pop Culture, that is just there as white noise, there tastes are guided by something far more personal. Even someone as superficial as Tarantino is aware of that.
Comment by Kevin — August 7, 2007 @ 10:58 am
I can’t believe I just forgot Terence Malick. Him for sure.
Also a number of the other filmmakers Bob Jones named.
Comment by Jason Murphy from New Jersey — August 7, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Tarantino is vastly overrated (can I supersize that junk movie order?) & Jarmusch is for people who are over stimulated by baseball.
BUT where is Paul Greengrass’s name on this list? BLOODY SUNDAY is the new Z, THE BOURNE SUPREMACY echos in the mind and heart long after the awesome action subsides and UNITED 93 is the best depiction of true heroism ever put on screen—and, I’m afraid, too intense for it own good.
Comment by Jerald Brewer from Bakersfield, CA — August 7, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
I think plenty of important names have either been covered in the article or by other’s comments except for perhaps one… Tom Tykwer.
Now I know many people dismiss his work because of his best known picture, “Run Lola Run”, which is far more kinetic and shallow then any of his other films ; “The Princess And The Warrior”, “Heaven”, “Perfume”... He is, at the very least, crafting unique and interesting work.
Comment by Ben from Arizona — August 7, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Nice article. There’s been plenty on the greatest living filmmakers left after these two giants (Godard, Lynch and Resnais being the right answers), but not many exploring the ones from today’s young filmmakers who would rise to their status.
It’s going to be Kar-Wai, most likely, but I like the suggestion of Van Sant. I didn’t see any mention of Cronenberg, which there definitely should be one. All in all, I would rather that the Andersons (Wes and Paul T.) and people like Clair Denis and Bela Tarr be remembered years down the road rather than Peter Jackson and Quentin Tarantino. Probably won’t be the case though.
Comment by Andrew — August 7, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
That was a culture-biased article!
Where is Grigory Kozintsev? Andrei Tarkovsky? Emil Lotyanu? Georgy Shengelaya?
Go to different parts of the world and the answer will be different.
I do agree with your reflection on the relative unimportance of contemporary cinema. I feel likewise for most of Hollywood’s production in the past 25+ years.
Comment by Kristin from my computer — August 7, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
kristin
i hate to break this to you but i’m pretty sure everyone you named is dead. tarkovsky died like 20 years ago. so i don’t think anyone is taking you seriously. unless you weren’t being serious. then the joke’s on me.
Comment by bob jones from bob jones university — August 7, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
All dudes.
Comment by ming jewls — August 7, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
No mention of John Waters?
Waters’ films are as creative, different and shocking after 30 years as they were when they were first released.
but it all depends on what you want to be remebered for?
Croenenberg, Carpenter, Waters and other will be remebered for making tight low budget and exciting films.
Michael Bay will always be remembered for fast edited explosions and special effects, just like Uwe Boll will be remembered for wasting people’s lives.
their is infamy in film too
Comment by Richard Lewin from Sydney, NSW, Australia — August 7, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Bob Jones;
Does one have to be alive today to be remembered 50 years from now?
The article is ethnocentric. What may be remembered and honored in one country or region of the world may not in another.
And that is my point. Who today is making really great fims? They may be out there, but they are not coming from Hollywood.
The joke is on you.
Comment by Kristin from Spain — August 7, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
That was a fun article, but any time naming bests or favorites. Stuff gets overlooked.
But more importantly a career has to be seen from distance and scope.
True maybe in the last 15 years TARANTINO has had a major influence on this generation of film makers.
But all the dudes who came of age in the late 60s and 70s (SCORSESE ETC) would have said GODARD is their biggest influence. And most of his stuff, today viewed through un-stoned eyes is pretty unwatchable (‘cept BREATHLESS).
If TARANTINO proves to be a one-note pony (aping 70s B movies), he may loose all future credibility.
This list if written in the seventies would of considered many directors who never went on to match the work they did early in their career (at least WELLES had TOUCH OF EVIL 20 years after KANE. Here’s hoping COPPOLA’s new one can stand with his output from 20 years ago).
I would imagine many film fans jotting the name MIKE NICHOLS or even GEORGE ROY HILL down. They now do hold up (though each did at least one four-star movie)
The same might be said for others from those generations
POLANSKI
PONTECORVO
SCHLESINGER
LEONE
PECKINPAH
GRAVRAS
ROMERO
FRIEDKIN
BOGDANOVICH
LINDSEY-HOGG
WENDERS
LUCAS
JEWISON
MEL BROOKS
PENNEBAKER
CIMINO
Like HAROLD LLOYD time and revival houses revived his reputation. PRESTON STURGES was held in higher degree after his career then during it.
In some ways that’s happening
LEONE
MELVILLE
MALLE
And the while OUTLAW JOSIE WALES may be the best film of his career the critic and award friendly toward the end of his career has jacked up his standing with history.
Frankly I’ll take the best of BOOREMAN or ALDRICH or FLEISCHER over most these guys you mentioned.
Yeah, they made a lot of shit But, who hasn’t?
You ever see HOOK or BRINGING OUT THE DEAD or JACK or THE LADY KILLERS or THE GAME or JACKSON’S KONG, most of VAN SANT and JARMUSCH and post BLUE VELVET LYNCH, not great. Or everything ALTMAN did between NASHVILLE and THE PLAYER If I recall all 50 of the theatrical flicks he made in that 12 year span… sucked.
Comment by Sweeneyrules from Los Angeles — August 7, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
I would argue you left off some up and coming directors who I think are on track to be legends. Paul Greengrass, Bryan Singer, Alexander Payne, Brad Bird, and Billy Ray are five I can think of right off the top of my head you left off. And how about some of the established guys like Tim Burton and Ridley Scott? I can’t believe those two weren’t included. And of course, as many have already mentioned, what about Steven Spielberg? You can’t tell me that Tarantino will be more of a legend than Burton, Scott, and Spielberg.
Comment by Eric from Nebraska — August 7, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
I almost forgot, what about David Cronenberg, John Sayles, and Ron Howard?
Comment by Eric from Nebraska — August 7, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
kristin,
okay so i wasn’t just completely off, i have no reason to take you seriously. this entire discussion, as stated in the article, is for us to “reflect on the state of cinema in the 21st century, and who, if anyone, will remain its ballyhooed bellwether.” two of the filmmakers you listed didn’t even make it close to even living into the 21st century. most of us here have heard of tarkovsky. do you really think all these people just managed to forget? the reason his name never came up was the same reason none of the 20 people who posted before you didn’t bring up kurosawa or tod browning—that wasn’t the point.
to say hollywood hasn’t made anything good in 25+ years is just absurd. and to speak of most of the directors people have been naming as “hollywood” directors is also absurd.
thankfully, the joke is not on me. it’s on you for actually thinking you are shedding some new light. If this article is ethnocentric so is every single list ever made. what is your point?
Comment by bob jones from bob jones university — August 7, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Bob Jones;
“Who will the film fans and cinephiles 50 years from now praise as their undeniable masters of the medium?”
My guess is that they will be the independent filmmakers from outside today’s Hollywood system and filmmakers from other countries. Films are now so expensive in Hollywood that standard production and marketing procedures are followed because the stakes are so high no one wants to take risks with truly new appraoches, concepts, personal visions, etc.
The names I listed come at the top of the list in some countries other than America. Likewise, there are names others listed here that mean close to nothing to people in other parts of the world. Certainly there are other examples like Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, etc.
What ever made you think I was trying to “shed light”? I was expressing an opinion. My point apparently does escape you. My feeling is that most of those remembered 50 years from now will likely be from our past, too, or from the older generation still living. But who can say? And why do you shoot me down for trying to express an opinion?
Comment by Kristin from here — August 7, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
BAZ LUHRMAN. Yeah, yeah, only 3 films, but they’re all incredible and have gotten progressively better. He is just as much an artist as David Lynch, his movies have helped redefine how one views the form, he puts his heart and soul into each finished product and clearly has a ball doing it. His non-mention is a huge, huge, HUGE oversight.
Comment by Greg — August 7, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
kristin,
i continue to try and shoot down your opinion because it still has no place here. nobody else has mentioned a dead director, and its not because people forgot to think of dead directors.
the only part of your opinion germane to this discussion is a ridiculous extreme which adds nothing. many great films have been made with hollywood’s help in the past 25 years. and regardless of what you care to think, directors from every era will be remembered. the people responsible for change are remembered. there are people already being remembered. at the bookstore just yesterday i saw books on john hughes, david lynch, paul thomas anderson, and terrence malick.
and i still think its silly to complain about the ethnocentricity of this or any list. that word says an arrogant belief in the superiority of your culture or ethnicity. arrogance is necessary in any list made. there’s no arguing that. so don’t deride a list for being arrogant and make infinitely more arrogant and ignorant statements about all contemporary cinema being crap.
Comment by bob jones from bob jones university — August 8, 2007 @ 12:27 am
Thank god you didn’t mention Canadian filmmakers, as a citizen of Canada, I would like to informally apologize for their irresponsible films, which in effect have jeopardized cinema culture in my country. Gentlemen, the message is simple, American filmmakers are good, tolerable, seek no film from Canada (there are exceptions) - We build Titanics in the film world.
That being said, the Directors we export do well, but we are fighting a massive epidemic. An afront to the cinema community, one which, in my mother country is built upon lies to taxpayers, we pay for our films that turn into garbage.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jim Bowman
Comment by jimbo from here — August 8, 2007 @ 1:27 am
bob jones
Hollywood films are at best 95% business and 5% art. It’s like manufacturing automobiles. The books you mention are a part of the money-making process, writing books about automobiles. You won’t find much in the way of artistic development in Hollywood. Technical development, yes, because that’s where the money is made.
Part of my point was that the list will change depending on your cultural background. There is a strong American bias in that list.
This is a public message board, so who are you to say I have no place here? I can take the discussion anywhere I want to, but this is the last time I’ll be responding to you.
Comment by Kristin from Spain — August 8, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Dr. Jim Bowman
Unfortunately, I must in general agree with you. I have not seen a distinctively great Canadian film or national style. Some people would point to Atom Egoyan, but that’s a matter of opinion (like everything else on this message board).
There are good filmmakers in America, the most interesting are independent. For most contemporary filmmakers, IMO you have to look overseas. Kaige Chen, Régis Wargnier….(it’s really too, too long a list). Where making money is the overriding reason for making films, the art of cinema is compromised.
Comment by Kristin — August 8, 2007 @ 11:55 am
kristin
you have the right to post here, it’s just pointless for you to post things that aren’t relevant at all. i have the right to post my views on manchester united’s signing of a 9 year old player, but i’m not doing it becaues this isn’t the right place.
to quantify business and art in a film is absurd. and books about david lynch and terrence malick are just cogs in the hollywood machine? stop acting like you know what you’re talking about. you’re a joke.
you haven’t responded to any of my posts with anything but meaningless shlock. you won’t be missed.
Comment by bob jones from bob jones university — August 8, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
My picks: Ang Lee, Tim Burton, and François Girard (and he’s Canadian!)
Comment by April from Ottawa — August 8, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
Whoa. Have you /seen/ “Meet the Feebles”??? It’s not a “family film” by any definition of the term. It’s an X-rated spoof of The Muppets.
Comment by YR from SI — August 11, 2007 @ 12:05 pm