February
19
Top 25 Active Directors: Did EW Get it Right?
EW loves lists like this one, the top 25 active directors, designed to inspire healthy debate. Did they get it right? And what do they mean by active, exactly? "Most talented, in-demand directors behind the camera today?" They're trying to have it both ways--it's a power list measuring fame, heat, influence and at the same time, a qualitative measure of talent.
Sorry, while I get why these guys are listed, their order does not compute. Where's Oliver Stone? David Cronenberg? Oscar-nominated Gus Van Sant isn't even in the also-ran Top 50 list, where filmmakers who are female (Mira Nair and Mary Harron but no Jane Campion), past their prime (Woody Allen, Sidney Lumet), documentarians (Michael Moore) black (Spike Lee), or directors of animation (Miyazaki, Stanton, Bird) are relegated. Also not included are Werner Herzog, Paul Verhoeven, Peter Weir or Terrence Malick. Oy. For those who would ask for a woman to be on the Top 25 list, there simply aren't any in this league. I'd like to see Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) get there some day.
Here's the EW List with annotations from me:
1. Steven Spielberg
The greatest. Of course.
2. Peter Jackson
Nipping at Spielberg's heels. For the moment, they're collaborating, on TinTin. I've seen some footage of The Lovely Bones, due next fall, and it looks impressive indeed. DreamWorks produced.
3. Martin Scorsese
Absolutely.
4. Christopher Nolan
He's a bit high in this context--ahead of Clint Eastwood, who is way too far down.
5. Steven Soderbergh
Also too high. Much as I admire much of Soderbergh's output, he rushes through too many movies in too little time, and could shape many of them better before he shoots. Che was a potentially great movie buried inside a sprawling, shapeless mess. The Good German was entirely misconceived.
6. Ridley Scott
Solid studio craftsman with a wide skill set--VFX, action, comedy, drama--who could be even greater if he compromised less. Yet I respect his ability to churn out strong movies with cranky movie stars within the system--despite the occasional misstep like A Good Year.
7. Quentin Tarantino
Of course.
8. Michael Mann
He's still managing to make his own brilliant, crazy movies with studio millions, whether they're commercial or not. Usually not. (Which is fine, as long as he can get away with it.)
9. James Cameron
As good as it gets, even if he hasn't made a studio feature since Titanic. Avatar awaits.
10. Joel and Ethan Coen
Nonpareils.
11. Guillermo del Toro
Ditto.
12. David Fincher
Another director stuck inside a studio matrix, dependent on big budgets. Love to see him break free somehow.
13. Tim Burton
Amazing what he does, even within the studio system.
14. Judd Apatow
Effective, hugely influential, successful and prolific, but he's still listed too high.
15. Sam Raimi
This list is very EW, geared at younger males. Raimi is a great director and deserves all credit for his movies including the Spiderman films. But again, he's ahead of some great Hollywood filmmakers here.
16. Zack Snyder
300 was great and I can't wait to see Watchmen. Again, ahead of Boyle, Eastwood, Alomodovar and Howard? Please.
17. Darren Aronofsky
Yes, a talented, gifted director on the rise. Ahead of Clint Eastwood?18. Danny Boyle
He's super gifted, but Slumdog is this year's news. He's ahead of many great directors with longer resumes and less heat.
19. Clint Eastwood
Why so shockingly low? He's the model for how to be a director, for chrissakes. Is he, maybe, too old for these juvenile-oriented EW fanboys?
20. Ron Howard
I like some of his least successful movies best. Like The Missing.
21. Ang Lee
An astonishingly versatile, sensitive filmmaker who can handle an American western, a British Jane Austen movie, or Asian epics. He can do anything.
22. Paul Thomas Anderson
Much as I laud his ambition, I feel that he hasn't made his best film yet. He's trying to navigate the studio/budget/indie waters. He's not a commercial director, so it's tough.
23. Paul Greengrass
He can make art and commerce at the same time, drives his studio crazy, but delivers.
24. Pedro Almodovar
Easily one of the greatest directors in the world.
25. Jon Favreau
One of the most promising helmers on the rise today. He can handle FX, comedy, actors, the whole ball of wax.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Of this hollywood list
Tarantino( but he's on probation)
del toro
eastwood
fincher
almodovar
ang lee
burton
raimi
cohen brothers
prominent misses
Roberto rodrigues
James cameron
wes anderson
paul verehoeven
bernardo bertalucci
Posted by: Ramesh | February 19, 2009 at 01:16 PM
I hate those stupid "Best of..." or "Top 25" lists, I don't always agree with their choices. I am really offended that they didn't pick any female directors.
I'm not surprised Speilberg is at number 1, but not everyone's going to be pleased with that. James Cameron? Come on, he's been M.I.A for almost a decade and yes, I know he got a new film coming up, but it's not fair to include him while E.W ignores active female directors!
Tim Burton, HELL NO. He's become a cliche of himself, that his style has become so predictable and boring. I love his early works, but as of late, I feel like he's regurgiated his own style over and over.
Judd Apatow? GTFO.
I agree with the inclusions of Danny Boyle, Darren Aronofsky, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Stephen Soderbergh.
Posted by: UGLY DEAF MUSLIM PUNK GURL! | February 19, 2009 at 01:34 PM
Am I taking crazy pills or should Woody Allen not be on this list?
Posted by: Tomas Larsson | February 19, 2009 at 02:44 PM
No Spike Lee? That's outrageous.
Posted by: Kendo | February 19, 2009 at 03:36 PM
The problem with this list is there is no criteria listed. There is a lot of ways to be top. The have a two line blurb that says " With the Oscars on our minds, we're counting down the most talented, in-demand filmmakers behind the camera today", In-demand might be the key to this list and the only reason Zack Snyder should be on it. It looks like it is not about total resume, but buzz. They still might have got it wrong.
Posted by: rich | February 19, 2009 at 04:22 PM
What a horrible, horrible list. Peter Jackson is one of the most overrated directors ever, and for him to place about Scorsese is absolutely criminal.
Oh, and that's not even taking into account the fact Paul Thomas Anderson has never made a bad (not even average!) film in his almost twenty-year career to date. Guy is the the twenty-first century Kubrick, in the fact of hacks such as Tarantino, Raimi, Snyder (jesus, that could be the worse choice ever), and Lee.
Oh, and Anne, get over your Eastwood love. He might churn out endless Oscar bait, but the old geezer is hardly a great director.
Posted by: Aden | February 19, 2009 at 06:16 PM
My takes on the ones I don't think are too good.
1. Steven Spielberg
wat?making video games and ripping off indian tycoons aint enough? you need critical acclaim too?
2. Peter Jackson
overrated. the last few LOTR films were soporific.
3. Martin Scorsese
who'se dat? what did he make lately?
4. Christopher Nolan
used batmobile. Ghajini was better than memento, go figure!
5. Steven Soderbergh
one word for you bizzach, Full Frontal (ok two words)
6. Ridley Scott
still photographer of some repute.
8. Michael Mann
who dat?!
is collateral and Ali all he can come up with?
9. James Cameron
My Bad. he's in.
14. Judd Apatow
I think he should be in too.
16. Zack Snyder
probably there because someone is promoting watchmen
17. Darren Aronofsky
canadian film geek. has no place in any pantheon.
18. Danny Boyle
running capitalist slumdog.
20. Ron Howard
His best picture was the universal studio tour ride video.
21. Ang Lee
he shouldn't be anglee with me for trashing him but...hulk? duuuude?!
22. Paul Thomas Anderson
ambitious amateur. what QT would have been if he was sane.- boring
23. Paul Greengrass
borin' Identity.
25. Jon Favreau
favrewho?
Posted by: Ramesh | February 19, 2009 at 06:23 PM
@ Ramesh
Are you serious with those comments? Either you know absolutely nothing about film (the incorrect comments about those that you think you know about just reinforces it), or you're taking the piss.
Posted by: Aden | February 19, 2009 at 08:11 PM
Danny Boyle is way too far down the list.
Clint got robbed . . . again. Ron Howard is every bit as good as Peter Jackson. Howard is a giant not 20.
If George Lucas got back in and started doing indies, he could jump right up the list. Clooney is pretty good director too.
Posted by: John | February 19, 2009 at 09:47 PM
@aden,
read my book....uh lips...
Seriously.
( I can justify each choice/trash here but its pre Oscrs and im keeping my tone light...)
Posted by: Ramesh | February 19, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Alfonso Cuaron?
Posted by: TennysonAlbright | February 20, 2009 at 01:41 AM
I think it's funny Cameron is on there. What's their definition of "active?"
Don't get me wrong, Cameron definitely belongs on a Best Of Directors list. I just don't understand why they had to quantify it by "active." Maybe it's more polite than a Best of the NOT DEAD Directors list?
Posted by: James | February 20, 2009 at 04:19 AM
The only two on that list whose films I would go see because they directed them are Tarantino and Scorsese. (Although I haven't liked a Scorsese film since KUNDUN.)
I used to be a big fan of Oliver Stone and Spike Lee, but I've seen one U-TURN and SUMMER OF SAM too many.
Whether he belongs there or not, I would have put Michael Bay on the list, solely on the basis of PEARL HARBOR and TRANSFORMERS.
Directors not on the list whose films I would see because they directed them:
John Woo (I've got RED CLIFF Pt. 1 on HK import DVD and am waiting for Part 2)
Walter Hill (sadly, not too active anymore)
plus assorted anime directors: Hayao Miyazaki, Satoshi Kon, Mamoru Oshii, Rintaro.
Posted by: Brian | February 20, 2009 at 07:38 AM
Where is Robert Zemeckis? He didn't even make their top 50. His films: Romancing the Stone, Back to the Future, Castaway, and Forrest Gump are original crowd pleasers. With Roger Rabbit, Beowulf, and The Polar Express he also pushes the industry in terms of technological advances as much as Spielberg and Cameron. To not include him in the top 50 shows why I canceled my subscription to EW YEARS AGO!
Posted by: Paul | February 20, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Brian has a point: If the directors don't have to be American, all bets are off. I would then add Mani Rathnam, Prakesh Omprakash Mehra, Ashutosh Gowariker, A.R. Muragadoss, Farhan Akhtar and others too numerous to remember.
Posted by: David C | February 20, 2009 at 01:00 PM
and Id trash half of the above too.
don't think I won't.
I think this list is from a "bankable in hollywood" directors list.
no excuse for John woo not being on it, tho.
Posted by: Ramesh | February 20, 2009 at 03:50 PM
The most informative thing about this list is that film making is still a male-dominated industry that is controlling our cultural expression. Don't get me wrong - I am a fan of a number of the men listed. But how telling that no women are included. Would any have made a top 50 list? I hope?
Posted by: Anna | February 21, 2009 at 05:44 AM
whose there? i can't think of any women directors (working or not) that make popular hollywoody films..
mira nair?
jodie foster?
miranda july?
kathryn bigelow?
do any of these fit in a top 100 list of hollywood bankables?(why not is a differrent discussion)
Posted by: Ramesh | February 21, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Oh, it's fun to rip on these nonsensical lists. So why not? Clearly this is a Hollywood 'power list'. These are the directors who define mainstream cinema and bring in the bucks. That's why few foreign language directors such as Hou Hsiao-hsien or Alexander Sukorov or Werner Herzog don't make it even into the top 50.
And how does Jon Favreau [!] edge past Woody Allen? What?
I also had to look three times at the overall top 50 because I cannot believe Gus Van Sant didn't make the list.
Posted by: MattL | February 21, 2009 at 04:38 PM
Catherine Hardwicke
Phyllida Lloyd
Both made more money over the past 12 months than many of the men listed.
Posted by: David C. | February 21, 2009 at 04:58 PM