People are just naming their favorite directors, and why they are their favorites... Don't see anything wrong with that.
If you know call it the 'best director' thread or the 'favorite director' thread, anyone will know what you are talking about, a little bit stupid to whine about that... Everyone has his *best* director: it's their favorite, the one they *mostly* enjoy their movies a lot.
The director is still most of the time the one who's *vision* ends up on the screen.

Let people have this discussion, it's enjoying.

Matthew, curiously to see someone from another far country mention The d'Ardenne brothers (from my country). I personally don't like their movies that much, they are good in what they do, but I like more stilistic movies.
Still, nice to see they are so well known.

I don't mean to sound like im whineing, I guess its because when my company makes films im the only one who knows how to work a camera, edit , light and put all the equipment together which basicly makes my job a lot harder than anyone elses but the director gets the credit.

But you're right it is usually the directors vision that ends up on screen, i do sometimes wonder how certain films would look if someone else had directed them.

I'll say no more

Andy.

That's a whole other question, and it would provide for an interesting discussion as well.

i dunno who said this, but theatre is an actor's medium, tv is the writer's and film the director's. does this still hold true today?

i'm so sure. i think there's a lot of mixing and blending these days. lots of film film directors like barry sonnefield are coming to TV (he directed pilot for pushign daisies and it looks like a film) and TV directors going to film and both going to theatre and back forth. same with actors+writers.

in all these artistics mediums it's the team that does deserve a collective award, but then isn't what the best picture, play, tv, etc. the final award of the night should be for the collective team responsible for the art.

having said of all that, i think it is still pretty true. if you've been watching mad men on amc lately, the writing comes through loud and clear even if the other dept. are doing a very fine job. same with theatre, great actors get repeat viewing from theatre nuts no matter the title. films still LOOK a certain way even if the director changes DP, like david fincher. you are still watching a david fincher film.

I kinda agree with Andy here.
Every movie is a combination of efforts. Stanley and Ridley instantly jump to my mind. If we are going to specify director here, it would have to go to Stanley, as when I think about the two big Ridley works (Alien/Bladerunner) it is clearly the cinematography that comes to mind. Yes there is powerful direction, but it clearly has its ups and downs compared to the cinematography which in both films is near perfect. Does this equal direction?
I do not believe anyone has mentioned Terry Gilliam yet. He deserves a strong mention. Brazil and The Adventures of Baron Münchhausen, are both brilliant works of art. I personally believe that any director that can pull you out of the "norm" and place you in an alternate time/place so convincingly is truly a great director. Gilliam clearly does this with great style and flare, and often reflective humor.
Anyways please add Gilliam to the pile ;>)

For me the greatest would have to be Kubrick. Lori is right with the notion that 2001 : A Space Odyssey is the film of the 20th century. It was simply mind blowing and still is!

Other directors I rate for one reason or another are :

Michael Mann : Fantastic action sequences and excellent choice of music.

William Friedkin : The guy was warped but brilliant at scaring people.

Frank Darabont : Beautiful work.

James Cameron : The Abyss kinda does it for me.

Has to be Harold Heckuba.
I mean who could top Hamlet-A-Go-Go!

This is so wierd, but none of my favorite directors have gotten much (if any) mention here.

My "A" List is:

Joel Coen - Barton Fink is one of the best films ever made.
Quentin Tarantino - modern genius. Pulp Fiction was amazing.
Terry Gillliam - for almost everything he's ever done. Just don't watch "Tideland" and you'll be fine. :)
David Lynch - I usually don't understand his movies. Maybe that's why I like them.

My "B" list is:

Spielberg - just for profligate production of good films.
P.T. Anderson - never disappoints.
Ridley Scott, with a few exceptions.

Funny, I just saw "Tideland," and really liked it!

Also, although I wouldn't put him in the same category as Kubrick, Kurosawa, or Kiezlowski ("the Killer K's!"), Jim Jarmusch has always been one of my personal favorites. Ditto John Sayles.

FWIW, the Guardian(UK) recently published an article on (in the editors' opinion) the top 40 living film directors. You can find it here:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/...082823,00.html

There's some overlap with this list, but also some folks who do not show up in this thread.

I didn't hate Tideland as much as most people did, but as a story, it seemed to fall apart for me at the end. A lot of people were put off by the dead dad, and also (understandably) the references to childhood sexuality. Neither of those bothered me as much as just not understanding what the point of it all was.

Which is to say, I don't think Tideland was a terrible movie, and it was definitely a courageous one, but most people wouldn't like it, and I don't really blame them, because it is way, way out there.

I didn't like Tideland either.
I didn't have any problem with the dead dad and the sexuality, I really think the controversy about that was WAY overblown, it didn't bother me at all.
I just found the movie to be boring... Really boring, and don't get me wrong: I don't have anything against slow movies, but nothing much happened...

Yeah, I've never read the book, but it looks like there might have been a problem with the adaptation. Or maybe it's one of those books that just shouldn't be made into a movie. Either way, it's not his best work.