Who is the best director of all time, and why is it Tarkovsky?
>>66879165
>turdshitsky
>best at anything
Tark is one of my favorites, but I'm not sure if I would call him the best of all time.
>>66879165
Jean-Luc Godard for over five decades of boundary pushing cinema
>>66879600
I'm bias, he was the catalyst for my love of film.
rare tarkovsky
>>66879165
yeah ok
10 of the greatest, just as they come to mind, no ranking. With more time, a change or two could be made
>Hitchcock
>Antonioni
>Kubrick
>Tarkovsky
>Godard
>Welles
>Bergman
>Fellini
>Renoir
>Eisenstein
>>66879970
>no Kurosawa
Pretty agreeable other than that.
>>66879897
He's not even top 20.
>>66879970
But what about
David Lean
Bresson
Bunuel
D.W Griffiths
Scorsese
P.T.A (I've just seen The Master)
Sergei Parajanov
De Sica
Melville
Ford
Wilder
Chaplin
Lang
Kurosawa
Polanski
Lynch
Truffaut
William Wyler
Mike Nichols
Howard Hawks
The Coen Brothers
Michael Powell
Huston
Terrence bloody Malick
Innaritu
Leone
Lindsay Anderson/Ken Loach for britfags
Coppola...
Now you see why the process of listing favourites when it comes to art is so utterly pointless
>>66880887
Are you kidding? The only one you listed worthy of consideration is Bresson. maybe Bunuel. Inanaritu? Stop trolling.
>>66879165
Tarkovsky ia great but Bergman was on another level, masterpiece after masterpiece for over three decades.
Also he had sven nykvist
>>66880887
Favourites, or judgements about best or greatest, aren't really pointless but if you take a practical nihilistic view on everything. List after list build the canons and are a way to organize a world with so much content in offer. Collectively or individually, they are an inevitable kind of business. And usually fun too.
>>66881042
Bergman himself admitted Tark was the greatest.
>>66879165
>>66879165
Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan > that faggot
>>66881420
In my time, people took an effort to shitpost. Hell, someone could even try to make a decent case for that uncommon claim. Now, we got you.
Tarkovskij is really amazing although he oftens ends up being too cryptic; is that a bad thing? It depends, most of the time it isn't, and a movie that makes you wonder and think before getting its message can be extremely good, however, Tarkovskij's movies were full of symbolism and clues, but understanding the meaning behind them is almost impossible for two reasons:
1) He clearly said we shouldn't be looking for a message or a meaning in his movies
2) People have different interpretations and none of them can be considered true.
With that being said, I recently got into Bergman, already watched The 7th Seal and Winter Lights, the movies weren't that bad but I was expecting a lot more, what should I watch now? I was considering finish the religious trilogy and then watching Persona...
>>66879790
DUDE DON'T ACT LMAO
>>66882281
>weren't that bad
Gee, thanks
>>66879165
that's not Carpenter
>>66882281
>he oftens ends up being too cryptic; is that a bad thing?
Yes. His films are just him masturbating with his holier than thou attitude even though he was basically a failed poet, even more pathetic than his dad.
>>66882346
>MOAIM
>The Ward
>Ghosts of Mars
His lows are a lot lower than most
>>66882360
>ynb this pathetic
Feels quite good
>>66882432
>ywn defend a dead Soviet hack on a Malagasy toilet training village gathering
What are you trying to prove? Intellectual superiority?
>>66882360
I enjoyed Arsenij's poetry though
>>66882492
>Malagasy toilet training village gathering
LMAO
>>66882281
There is no symbolism in his films. He went out of his way to make that very clear and to show how much he hated it.
just saw my first tarkovsky flick yesterday, solaris. i give it a 7/10.
>>66882606
But it's so fucking weird, look at The Mirror, why using a mirror as an element? Why he always uses water in his movies? Why the hell putting that black dog in Stalker?
That's the problem I have with his movies, I know he hated when people asked him such questions, but it's a natural reaction when you see specific elements being repeated.
>>66882724
Watch Stalker or The Mirror now, they are considered to be his masterpieces (I only enjoyed The Mirror though, only liked photography in Stalker).
>>66882406
>halloween
>the thing
>escape from new york
is highs are a lot higher than all
>>66879165
Tarkovsky was a hack. Don't tell me he actually died thinking he was a good film maker? No one told him his films weren't good?
>>66883061
Hey, I got that reference! xd
Anyways, people shouldn't be reading diaries. Fucking hell, you're not safe even when dead.
>>66879165
IMO Eisenstein was the greatest.
>>66882281
It's really not that criptic. The barbarism of the Mongols in Andrei Rublev is very obvious and surface level for instance.
Tarkovsky
Bresson
Mizoguchi
Dreyer
Ozu
Bergman
Godard
No other worthy competitors.
>>66879165
i watched solaris, zerkalo and stalker
i tried to like tarkovsky, but i think i just dodn't get him or his works
i don't think i have a problem with slow paced movies or even movies one would call boring, but god damn, it was so painful to watch these 3
take valhalla rising for an istance: very slow, long silent parts, almost no talk.
i thought it was pretty takovsky-ish, but instead of real tarkovisky i loved it.
>>66884715
Godard is chic trash compared to the other heavy-hitters on that list.
>>66883235
please tell me where is it from, i can't fucking remember!!
>>66884571
Still have to watch that one along with Nostalghia.
>>66885846
From Tarkovsky's journal, about some author I forgot.
>>66880887
PTA has got to be the most overrated director of all time. Boogie nights was awesome, everything he's made since has been shit.
People think shit like The Master or There Will Be Blood are good solely because of the cinematography, which PTA has almost nothing to do with.
>>66879623
>>66879970
>Hitchcock
>Godard
>>66884715
>Godard
>>66884715
really nice list but you missed fellini and antonioni, and thats not nice
