50 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Critics for The Guardian have ranked the 40 greatest directors on the planet. Makes interesting reading, although it's certainly a list for intellectual British Film Institute cineastes. And where the heck is Spielberg? Anyway, here we go (from http://film.guardian...1082823,00.html):

The world's 40 best directors

The Hollywood blockbuster may be in crisis, but the art of the cinema is as healthy as ever. Our panel of critics picks out the film-makers who are leading the way

1. David Lynch
After all the discussion, no one could fault the conclusion that David Lynch is the most important film-maker of the current era. Providing a portal into the collective subconscious, the daydream nation conjured up in tales such as Blue Velvet, Lost Highway or Mulholland Drive is by turns frightening, exasperating, revelatory and wild. Nobody makes films like David Lynch. He is our spooky tour guide through a world of dancing dwarves, femme fatales and little blue boxes that may (or may not) contain all the answers. We wouldn't want to live in the places he takes us. Somehow, we suspect, we do.
Substance 17
Look 18
Craft 18
Originality 19
Intelligence 17
Total 89

2. Martin Scorsese
Scorsese's influence is impossible to overstate. His red-blooded canon has spawned a generation of copycats while his muscular style has become a template. That said, opinion is divided over the man's recent output. Some regard his monumental Gangs of New York as a classic to rank alongside Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. Others worry that the heavyweight champion of American movies is no longer quite punching his weight.
Substance 17
Look 18
Craft 18
Originality 17
Intelligence 18
Total 88

3. Joel and Ethan Coen
Their latest film, Intolerable Cruelty, may have marked a new, "commercial" phase in their career, but no one could ever accuse the Coen brothers of selling out. The Coens' special mix of arch, sculpted dialogue, film-history homage and scrupulously-framed cinematography has never failed them yet, and through their associations with Sam Raimi and Barry Sonnenfeld, have exerted a powerful, if unacknowledged, influence on mainstream event cinema. Until Fargo, they seemed content to mess about in their own particular corner of the film industry; that film's stunning popular success suddenly catapulted them into the Hollywood big league.
Substance 14
Look 18
Craft 18
Originality 18
Intelligence 18
Total 86

4. Steven Soderbergh
Steven Soderbergh is a one-off: an independent-minded film-maker who has forged a happy working relationship with Hollywood. This is thanks to a brilliant balancing act. Soderbergh soothes the studios with expert, intelligent crowd-pleasers like Erin Brockovich and Ocean's Eleven then shifts gear for more esoteric, personal projects (Solaris, Full Frontal). His ongoing alliance with George Clooney, moreover, is the most reliable director-star double act since Scorsese found De Niro.
Substance 16
Look 17
Craft 18
Originality 16
Intelligence 18
Total 85

5. Terrence Malick
The lofty ranking of Terrence Malick just goes to show that it's quality, not quantity, that counts. Renowned as a ghostly, Garbo-style recluse, this fabled figure has made just three films over three decades. Even so, the wild beauty of his 1973 debut Badlands casts a formidable shadow, while his sprawling 1999 war epic The Thin Red Line at least proved that the master had lost none of his magic. Next up, apparently, is a biopic of Che Guevara. But don't hold your breath.
Substance 16
Look 18
Craft 17
Originality 17
Intelligence 17
Total 85

6. Abbas Kiarostami
The highest ranking non-American, and one of the most respected film-makers working today - by his peers if not the general public. Operating mostly in rural Iran, Kiarostami has often concealed potentially life-threatening political commentary within films of simplicity and compassion. But he has complicated his medium, too, by mixing drama and documentary, and actors and non-actors, to dizzying effect. His recent in-car drama Ten provided a daring Tehran expos

[Loomis]

15. Pedro Almodovar
Post-Franco Spain needed Almodovar like a desert needs rain. His early films were gaudy, bawdy and loud; drunken celebrations of the country's new-found social and sexual freedoms. But Almodovar is much more than some posturing agent provocateur. He spins soulful, spellbinding stories and creates characters that ring with life. All About My Mother and Talk to Her were exotic masterpieces that confirmed their creator as the most important Spanish director since Luis Bu

[Loomis]

30. Takeshi Kitano
Few directors have ever made themselves look as cool as Kitano has. His shark-eyed gangster persona became a fixture of Japanese action thrillers in the 1990s, but behind the camera his controlled blend of visual slapstick and sudden violence has become a distinctive style. Recent efforts have seen him trying to diversify. Dolls was a subdued art film, but next year's Zatoichi is a sword-swishing crowd pleaser.
Substance 15
Look 16
Craft 16
Originality 16
Intelligence 15
Total 78

31. Richard Linklater
Linklater is the grunge philosopher of independent cinema. Hailing from Austin, Texas, he casually defined an era with 1991's loose-knit, haphazard Slacker. The uproarious Dazed and Confused and the seductive Before Sunrise extolled the joys of footloose youth, while his animated Waking Life spun a woozy, bong-smoking rumination on dreams and reality. Incredibly, Linklater recently graduated to the big time when his School of Rock hit number one at the US box office.
Substance 15
Look 15
Craft 15
Originality 17
Intelligence 16
Total 78

32. Gaspar No

[ray t]

hey loomis, who are your favourites out of this crop....and who are your faves not in this list...also, who are your all time faves/"best"?


and why do they not have that m night shaylaman (sp.) chap?

[Loomis]

There are some terrific choices on this list (as well as some highly dubious ones), but some of the precious comments do put me in mind of "Pseuds Corner" in Private Eye. For instance:

"He possesses a forensic mind, a painter's eye and a nose for the dark absurdities of American life."

"Tarantino can still make the simple act of watching a film seem oh-so-exciting."

"Post-Franco Spain needed Almodovar like a desert needs rain."

"Winterbottom's career presents a study in motion."

"There is something wonderfully fearless about 33-year-old Paul Thomas Anderson."

[Tarl_Cabot]

Where is John Sayles? He writes all his films, even in spanish when he's not a latino. Lonestar is a masterpiece.

[Genrewriter]

What, no mention of Richard Donner?

Interesting list, though I'd probably put Scorsese at #1. Nice to see David Cronenberg getting some recognition. While I don't always enjoy his work, he definitely takes some chances in terms of subject matter. If the Wachowski brothers can be the list, than the little joke I made above suddenly isn't so funny. As much as I admire the Coen Brothers and Soderbergh, I'm not sure I'd put them that high up on the list. I also agree with you, Loomis. Where the heck is Spielberg?

[Tarl_Cabot]

Loomis. Where the heck is Spielberg?"

I lost faith in him until "Catch Me if you can"-that's a great one.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ray t

hey loomis, who are your favourites out of this crop....and who are your faves not in this list...also, who are your all time faves/"best"?

Of the people listed, I like the following:

1. DAVID LYNCH (his best IMO: MULHOLLAND DR.)

2. MARTIN SCORSESE (his best IMO: GOODFELLAS)

3. JOEL AND ETHAN COEN (their best IMO: THE BIG LEBOWSKI)

14. WONG KAR-WAI (his best IMO: CHUNGKING EXPRESS)

17. QUENTIN TARANTINO (his best IMO: PULP FICTION)

20. MICHAEL WINTERBOTTOM (his best IMO: WONDERLAND)

24. ALEXANDER PAYNE (his best IMO: ABOUT SCHMIDT)

28. MICHAEL MOORE (his best IMO: BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE)

30. TAKESHI KITANO (his best IMO: HANA-BI)

38. TAKASHI MIIKE (his best IMO: AUDITION)

I would have included MICHAEL MANN (his best IMO: HEAT), JOHN McTIERNAN (his best IMO: DIE HARD), PHILLIP NOYCE (his best IMO: THE QUIET AMERICAN), and certainly STEVEN SPIELBERG (his best IMO: SCHINDLER'S LIST), and probably quite a few others, too. DOUG LIMAN (his best IMO: THE BOURNE IDENTITY) looks like a director to keep an eye on.

And why on earth BERNARDO BERTOLUCCI (his best film IMO: THE LAST EMPEROR) is excluded is anyone's guess.

As for the all-time greats who are no longer with us, I'd start listing people like Eisenstein, Fellini, Mizoguchi....

My big problem with this Guardian list is that intellectual snobbery and political correctness are rife. What on earth is Samira Makhmalbaf doing on it? Do these critics really consider her one of the 40 greatest directors in the world, or do they like her mainly for being a 23-year-old Iranian woman? There are plenty of other female directors out there with far more accomplished CVs: Kathryn Bigelow, Jane Campion, Agnieszka Holland.... If we're talking "young female directors to watch", what about Sofia (LOST IN TRANSLATION) Coppola?

And why is Wong Kar-Wai on the list and his fellow Chinese auteurs Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou aren't? Could it be that Wong is seen as an avant-garde, "indie", cutting-edge filmmaker, while Chen and Zhang are "quality" merchants?

Similarly, why snub Spielberg and honour Scorsese? Presumably because Scorsese is viewed as an "adult", "intelligent" director, and Spielberg (in spite of EMPIRE OF THE SUN, SCHINDLER'S LIST and others) isn't.

Steven Soderbergh, Terrence Malick, David Cronenberg, Paul Thomas Anderson, Spike Jonze, Ang Lee, David O Russell, Lars von Trier, David Fincher and Gus Van Sant are terribly overrated IMO (although they have all made fine films). And the Wachowski Brothers definitely don't belong on any "best directors" list.

[Genrewriter]

Michael Moore on the list? So Hell finally froze over, eh? I don't even want to start on the reasons I loathe the man, but my dislike for him rivals Jim's dislike for Pierce Brosnan.

I do agree however, that David Fincher is overrated. A decent enough filmmaker, but still very overrated.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I do agree however, that David Fincher is overrated. A decent enough filmmaker, but still very overrated."

Count me in. Alien 3 was one of the worst sequels ever. Fight club was interesting for 3/4 of the film and then it became a stupid, dissapointing movie. never saw 7 and I don't care to.

[Genrewriter]

Seven is alright but The Game and Panic Room are just plain annoying. I agree, Alien 3 is pretty bad.

[ray t]

Originally posted by Loomis



My big problem with this Guardian list is that intellectual snobbery and political correctness are rife. What on earth is Samira Makhmalbaf doing on it? Do these critics really consider her one of the 40 greatest directors in the world, or do they like her mainly for being a 23-year-old Iranian woman?

yea...they seem like a bunch of artsy-fartsy fairies.

where is m night shalamyan? where is peter jackson? where is ridley scott? where is wolfgang petersen? where is clint eastwood? (yes THE clint eastwood) where is brian de palma? where is tim burton? oliver stone? spielberg?

tell 'em to lose their fairy wings for me!!!!

[Genrewriter]

Good points, ray. Jackson, Eastwood and Burton have done films that could certainly put them on that list.

[ray t]

Originally posted by Genrewriter
Good points, ray.  Jackson, Eastwood and Burton have done films that could certainly put them on that list.

eastwood alone is worth 10 spike jonezzzzs, 10 finchers. have these pathetic brit 'critics' even seen his (considerble) body of work? and i'm NOT talking about his spaghetti western characters or dirty harry roles here!!!

that list, with-out the likes of shalamayan, jackson, burton, spielberg, et. al. isnt even worth wiping ones *** with if written on a piece of paper;)

[Genrewriter]

I agree. My favorite Eastwood films outside of the spaghetti westerns and Dirty Harry are Unforgiven, Outlaw Josey Wales, White Hunter Black Heart and Heartbreak Ridge. Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil is also pretty good.

[ray t]

Originally posted by Genrewriter
I agree.  My favorite Eastwood films outside of the spaghetti westerns and Dirty Harry are Unforgiven, Outlaw Josey Wales, White Hunter Black Heart and Heartbreak Ridge.  Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil is also pretty good.

AND he has a new critically and commerically well recieved new movie out too:

mystic river

what has spike jonezzzzz done? i fell asleep during 'adaptation/translation/whatever'. a complete waste of money. (didnt even have to put up a show of liking it to get laid. was living with the girlfriend at the time)

these critics are a comlplete joke....u need to have an oriental name or have back-packed thru iran/afganistan/pakistan or done only one or two movies or lived in someones attic eating cat food to get on their "list"...

er, sure....

[Turn]

Wow, was there some sort of age bias here? If you put a PT Anderson, Wachoski Brothers or Alexander Payne up there on the on the basis of three or four movies then you have to include Francis Ford Coppola, with four undeniable classics on his resume, although he hasn't done much in the past couple decades to live up to that legacy.

Everybody else has already bemoaned no Eastwood or Spielberg. There's plenty of others who belong there too, but somebody like Malick is treated like J.D. Sallinger or something. Just because somebody has stepped to the plate just a few times and has a high batting average doesn't necessarily make him the best hitter on the team, like the guys who go out there everyday and struck out a few times.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Turn

Wow, was there some sort of age bias here? If you put a PT Anderson, Wachoski Brothers or Alexander Payne up there on the on the basis of three or four movies then you have to include Francis Ford Coppola, with four undeniable classics on his resume, although he hasn't done much in the past couple decades to live up to that legacy.  

True, but I think the purpose was not to list the 40 greatest living directors, so much as to come up with 40 names who have already done stunning work but whose best films are almost certainly still to come.

They ought to have been more clear about that, though.

Originally posted by Turn

Just because somebody has stepped to the plate just a few times and has a high batting average doesn't necessarily make him the best hitter on the team, like the guys who go out there everyday and struck out a few times.  

Exactly. What's so special about Malick? BADLANDS (1973) and DAYS OF HEAVEN (1978) are good films (although the latter's main claim to fame is its staggeringly beautiful cinematography, by Nestor Almendros), but even in his heyday Malick didn't exactly shake Hollywood to its foundations. I found THE THIN RED LINE (1998) a self-indulgent mess, although admittedly I watched it on poor-quality pirate video and should probably give it a fair chance on crystal-clear DVD.

Still, if Malick deserves to be treated as a celluloid Salinger, why doesn't George Lucas? Why isn't he on the list? He made a much greater contribution to cinema than Malick, both before his long, self-imposed period of exile from the director's chair, and afterwards. Whatever one thinks of the STAR WARS prequels, at least Lucas is still out there, trying out new ideas and doing his best to push the boundaries of film's technological possibilities. But Malick is, of course, a critics' darling.

I even think someone like John McTiernan is more worthy of being included on the list than Malick. At least he's a professional film director in regular employment.

BTW, where's Oliver Stone?

[ray t]

while youre at it loomis can u ask 'em:

Originally posted by ray t

where is m night shalamyan? where is peter jackson? where is ridley scott? where is wolfgang petersen? where is clint eastwood? (yes THE clint eastwood) where is brian de palma? where is tim burton? oliver stone? spielberg?

you're right there in london. send them an e-mail and ask them.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ray t

you're right there in london. send them an e-mail and ask them.  

Frankly, my dear Ray, I don't think they'd give a damn.

But there's a "have your say" page if you'd like to have a go at them yourself: http://filmtalk.guar...14@@.685ebb64/0.

[Qwerty]

Where is the famed Alfred Hitchcock? My vote goes to him as one of the best!

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot
Where is John Sayles? He writes all his films, even in spanish when he's not a latino. Lonestar is a masterpiece.

Bless you for saying that, Tarl!!!

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Loomis
Still, if Malick deserves to be treated as a celluloid Salinger, why doesn't George Lucas? Why isn't he on the list? He made a much greater contribution to cinema than Malick, both before his long, self-imposed period of exile from the director's chair, and afterwards. Whatever one thinks of the STAR WARS prequels, at least Lucas is still out there, trying out new ideas and doing his best to push the boundaries of film's technological possibilities.

I disagree with you about Lucas -- I don't think he's out there trying new ideas at all. He used to be a very promising director but his last two outings are, imo, an embarassment -- hackneyed, trite, contrived and unwatchable.

Look folks, there are lots of directors these critics missed and no one will ever agree with all their choices. I suspect that the panel of critics who put this list together probably disagreed with the choices that finally wound up on the list.

Lots of disagreements here within this little group of CBn posters. McTiernan on a "best director" list? Really??? *shrug* I agree, tho, where's Stone and Spielberg? I can take or leave Malick (mostly leave). But I happen to like Abbas Kiorastami very much (and Mohsen Makmahlbaf). I don't know why they put in Makmahlbaf's daughter in there tho -- she's a good director but she's still growing in her style, I don't think she should've been included. Sophia Coppola has a more assertive hand, I think. And I'm certainly glad they kept Jane Campion out of there: all she knows about is victimized women and predatory men.

Unfortunately, directing is still very much a man's job. I've been waiting years for more women to do more directing work but the pace of progress in that area is abominably slow.

Then of course I have to ask about my own two countrymen and personal favorites: Walter Salles and Hector Babenco. But we could go on and on about this...

[Tarl_Cabot]

David Fincher??? Again,Has anyone seen a John Sayles Film?? He owns 90% of these johnny come latelys. Spike Jonze?? WTF? I agree about Paul Thomas Anderson(love BN but I passed on Mag because he polluted it with Cruise factor). Gus Van sant? This list is about pretentious directors, not quality film makers. Yeah I agree with whoever mentioned Clint Easwood. The man rules the galaxy.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jaelle

I disagree with you about Lucas -- I don't think he's out there trying new ideas at all.  He used to be a very promising director but his last two outings are, imo, an embarassment -- hackneyed, trite, contrived and unwatchable.

I won't deny that, but what I wrote was that he is pushing the technological boundaries of film, and I stand by that. He's trying to take CGI and other audio/visual innovations as far as they will go. It may (or may not) be a failed experiment, but at least he's still out there, trying. More than can be said for Mr Malick, I think.

Originally posted by Jaelle

Lots of disagreements here within this little group of CBn posters.  McTiernan on a "best director" list?  Really???  *shrug*

Why not? He's made at least three genre masterpieces (PREDATOR, DIE HARD and THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER), and continues to make interesting films - films that, arguably, are all the more interesting for being flawed. He's no worse a director than many of the people on this list, and much better than some (the Wachowski Brothers make McTiernan look like Bergman, IMO). However, he's not "arty" or "political", and he doesn't use his works to strike attitudes; therefore, these trendy critics probably disparage him as one who has "nothing to say". I'm sure they'd also dismiss someone like David Lean for the same reasons.

Originally posted by Jaelle

But we could go on and on about this...  

Ain't that the fun of it, though?

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Loomis
I won't deny that, but what I wrote was that he is pushing the technological boundaries of film, and I stand by that. He's trying to take CGI and other audio/visual innovations as far as they will go. It may (or may not) be a failed experiment, but at least he's still out there, trying. More than can be said for Mr Malick, I think.

Fair enough, you're right about the technological issue. I'll plead to the charge of snobbery -- maybe I'm automatically downplaying his focus on technology. It's just that his focus on technology seems so cold and lifeless. Other directors in the past have been innovative with technology but haven't forgotten that film is medium about human stories and human beings. With Lucas, I think he just wants robots for actors and absolutely no story whatsoever. He's a pure gadget man, and I just find that boring.

Why not? He's made at least three genre masterpieces (PREDATOR, DIE HARD and THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER), and continues to make interesting films - films that, arguably, are all the more interesting for being flawed. He's no worse a director than many of the people on this list, and much better than some (the Wachowski Brothers make McTiernan look like Bergman, IMO). However, he's not "arty" or "political", and he doesn't use his works to strike attitudes; therefore, these trendy critics probably disparage him as one who has "nothing to say". I'm sure they'd also dismiss someone like David Lean for the same reasons.[/B]

I've only seen two of the ones you mentioned, tho I've seen other films of his. Never saw PREDATOR. And I *love* HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER. I also like DIE HARD. Don't get me wrong, I like his films. I just never placed him in the same category as a Spielberg or a Stone or an early Scorcese. By "category" I mean someone to put on a "best of" list. But, hey, I'm willing to reconsider. Especially given the fact that directors of the past who were known for "just escapist entertainment" have now become so revered for their craft and innovations.

What I don't care for is when all this serious critical attention is paid to someone like Mike Leigh -- I HATE his work! Give me a McTiernan any day!

Also, you might appreciate a recent commentary about Scorcese by one of the The Guardian's film commentators, I think it was Xan Brooks. He basically argued that Scorcese hasn't been any good for years and that critics laud him with knee-jerk clockwork just because well...it's the Scorcese name. I mean, GANGS OF NEW YORK? Please. A lot of young directors are doing far better work than he is.

Oh, and add my voice to the kudos for Clint Eastwood. Fabulous director! I also have to admit that I'm an Almovodar geek, tho I wasn't too crazy about TALK TO HER. I'm just glad they didn't put Ron Howard in there.

Ain't that the fun of it, though? [/B]

But of course!

[Jaelle]

Thought you guys might be interested in readers' responses published in today's Guardian to the original article that Loomis posted:

http://film.guardian...1089446,00.html

Our article naming the 40 greatest directors garnered letters from fans of everyone from Steven Spielberg to Hou Hsiao-Hsien. Here are a few of the best

Letters
Friday November 21, 2003
The Guardian

So the man who directed Alien 3 gets in, but not the man who directed Alien?
Alan Gent
Cheadle

Good guide - do it next year when you can include Sofia Coppola somewhere. And Jane Campion! But I did have to go back and check the criteria of your article title to accept the Spielberg no-show, especially with Scorsese at no 2. Spielberg's not creating the zeitkunst any more, but he's still a lightning conductor for the best in the business (Minority Report?).
Cheyney Kent
London

I was very surprised that Danny Boyle was not included in your list of the world's 40 best film directors. The opening sequence of 28 Days Later should be enough in itself to warrant inclusion, and when it's added to Trainspotting and Shallow Grave, I feel you have overlooked a brilliant man who has yet to reach his peak.
Ben Longman
Chester

What? No Russ Meyer or Michael Winner in the top 40 film directors? Yes, I know the films were all crap. But in a strange way they have added hugely to the sum of human enjoyment...
Keith Flett
London

The world's 40 best directors? More like 40 best ways to wind up Ridley Scott fans.
Lee Walmsley
Liverpool

Overall great comprehensive list of world's best directors. But a couple of things. Where the hell was Jim Jarmusch? And for that matter Spike Lee, who is still making fantastic movies 15 years on. More to the point, the top 3 were most disappointing - Scorsese, Lynch and the Coens!? In 1990 I wouldn't have disagreed, but now? They're all certainly past their peak - Scorsese in particular having just made the worst two films of his career. If you're judging them by their back catalogue, then the whole exercise is just plain silly - I mean in that case where the heck are Coppola, Altman, Bertolucci and Polanski? And a final point: if we're talking about the smarts - you're telling me that Soderbergh is more intelligent then clever-clog Terrence Malick, the MIT professor who translated Heidegger from German to English?
G Kambo
London

I certainly wouldn't dispute many of the distinguished panel's choices, but was surprised at Martin Scorsese's position at a lofty number 2 on your list. He may have made a series of classic films in the 1970s and 80s but hasn't done anything of A-grade merit since Goodfellas, in 1990. Indeed, his last effort - Gangs of New York - was rather unwieldy, redeemed only by Daniel Day-Lewis. One other gripe: where was Japanese director Hideo Nakata? Ring and Dark Water are two of the most unsettling and powerful horror films of the last decade.
Andrew Winter
Southend-on-Sea

All 40 in the right places. Uncanny.
Martin Farr
Newcastle

Now I know these lists are a wind-up. How else do you justify the exclusion of Zhang Yimou and Chen Kaige? In fact, there isn't a single director from mainland China (I exclude Wong Kar-Wai; rightly included, but he was making great films before Hong Kong returned to China in 1997).
Charles Ross
Birmingham

How can your film critics have overlooked the Taiwanese geniuses, Hou Hsiao-Hsien and Edward Yang, in drawing up their list of the world's 40 best directors? Hou's City of Sadness and Yang's A One and a Two surely rank among the most majestic masterpieces of the past quarter-century.
Alan Pavelin
Chislehurst

Thank you for not putting Carlos Saura on the list.
But where are Jim Jarmusch, John Sayles, Todd Solondz, Terry Zwigoff, Matthew Bright, Peter Weir, Hideo Nakata, Michael Mann, Steve Buscemi, Guillermo del Toro, Shane Meadows, Ken Loach, Mike Leigh, Paul Schrader, Darren Aronofsky, Christopher Nolan, Clint Eastwood, Alex de la Iglesia, George Armitage, Abel Ferrara or Sofia Coppola?
Also, I'm a little confused. Didn't your no 16 also direct Velvet Goldmine?
Adam Nightingale
Nottingham

Gaspar Noe? Aki Kaurismaki? David O Russell? The best directors in the world? Don't make me laugh. Any list that omits Nanni Moretti, Julio Medem and Tom Tywker, the natural heirs to Krzysztof Kieslowski's title as pre-eminent European director, is flawed at best.
Michael O'Regan
Tralee, Co Kerry, Ireland

While this may sound aggressive, it is not meant to be. However... where the hell is Peter Jackson?
Dr Abid S Hussain
Manchester

I was pleased to see that Peter Greenaway did not figure in your list of the 40 best film directors. I well remember this director at a public showing in Bristol answering questions on his then-new film The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover. In answer to a perfectly reasonable question he would not explain himself, but asserted that no one should expect any great masterpiece - for example, his film or a Beethoven symphony - to yield all its secrets on one showing. Arrogant and patronising, and he's managed to lose his way even since then.
Paul Brooks
Bristol

My God! How could you have forgotten Mohsen Makhmalbaf or Rakhshan Bani-Etemad and placed Samira Makhmalbaf ahead of them.
Name and address withheld

OK, so we know your 40 best directors is a wind-up but at least give us a clue about the rules. Then explain why you left out a Greek bloke, made about a dozen films (one Cannes Grand Jury and Palme d'Or prize) including one currently reissued, awarded five stars by one of your panel and described as a "mesmeric, awe-inspiring film". First name Theo.
Alaster Calder
Gillingham

[Tarl_Cabot]

Jaelle,
you have not seen PREDATOR!!!!!?????? ARE YOU FOOGIN' KIDDING????!!! There were 2 highlight films in the summer of 1987: The Living Daylights and PREDATOR!!! (Ok I liked Robocop, 'Untouchables' and 'No way out' but those two are my favs).

I command you to rent it ASAP-no buy it! It's an awesome film that I never get tired of. Great music, characters, excitement and action and one of the greatest villians/adversaries in cinema history . Arnie's finest hr.

[Loomis]

Good guide - do it next year when you can include Sofia Coppola somewhere.  

But where are .... or Sofia Coppola?  

Wow, exactly how amazing is LOST IN TRANSLATION?

I don't think there's ever been a film I've looked forward to more. But it doesn't open in the UK until January.:mad:

I was pleased to see that Peter Greenaway did not figure in your list of the 40 best film directors. I well remember this director at a public showing in Bristol answering questions on his then-new film The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover. In answer to a perfectly reasonable question he would not explain himself, but asserted that no one should expect any great masterpiece - for example, his film or a Beethoven symphony - to yield all its secrets on one showing. Arrogant and patronising, and he's managed to lose his way even since then.  

I'm also pleased that Greenaway was excluded. A ludicrous, ludicrously overrated (so-called) director.