Directors

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

seely — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:52:15 GMT

I really feel that Tim Burton has yet to leave a defining mark. He definitely has a trademark style, and its easy to look at a film and say 'oh thats so Burton!', but I have yet to see one film that would stand out as a true masterpeice.

Many of his numerous films are excellent, but I can't put my finger on one that is head and shoulders above the rest. There were some that weren't as good as others (Mars Attacks, Sleepy Hollow), and there were some that were truly fantastic (Big Fish, James and the Giant Peach), but I can't seem to pick one that had the criteria I consider when I think 'masterpeice'.

I suppose I look for a combination of critical success (which Burton has fairly consistently had) and theatrical success (which has been rather hit or miss). I suppose I look for a masterpeice to be able to survive outside of the critical world and be accessible and popular among the hoi polloi as well. Any thoughts?

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

seely — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:41:14 GMT

Funny, Aronofsky is the first I thought of too. I felt like Requiem for a Dream, although excellent, was too 'rough' to be a masterpeice, and had a lot of themes explored in similar ways in other films. The Fountain, which I also enjoyed, was however almost too ambitious. The task Aronofsky set out to accomplish was enourmous. Four seperate stories that are intertwined but are seperate? Huh? Exactly. He handled it with alplomb, but it was still too alienating and lofty of a concept for it to ever work in a way that would connect with every filmgoer.

Risselada:

I'm thinking maybe Darren Aronofsky. I know a lot of people consider Requiem for a Dream a modern masterpiece, but I think he could do better. I still have yet to see The Fountain, but I know there was enough dissention that it still can't have been a masterpiece.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

pippin06 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:30:05 GMT

I just found this discussion and have never participated in it, and after reading the whole thread, I find the whole thing interesting. Topically, it's a very good question, a challenging point of discussion, but at its foundation, it's also confusing, which is why I think there was so much waxing on what masterpiece is defined as.

Those who follow my blog know that I have a ratings system, and a movie that gets a 10 is a masterpiece, and a 10 is a rare thing from me indeed. I hesitate to dole it out even when my initial gut reaction is to say "10!" If I'm rating something a masterpiece, it's because I think not only do I like it, but a whole lotta other people must (one hopes) like it too because it's really that good. I think masterpiece is a less subjective term than, say, "overrated" (for more on that, see the Overrated and Top 5 groups). So, to that end, I sort of agree with Rizzo, but I understand why others like JimBell have discussed what underlies the meaning of "masterpiece."

So, with that said, of all of the directors listed, I have to say that just about all of the directors discussed have potential to do better or to work toward masterpieces. Some are unflinchingly good but are also young (or younger) and are on hot streaks with their creativity. Wes Anderson, David Fincher, Sofia Coppola, Darren Aronofsky, Sam Mendes - these guys are still somewhat new to the business, and if their earlier works astounded (and for the record, I love at least one movie by each of them), then they all have the potential to do better.

Steven Soderbergh is very talented, and I think he will work toward his masterpiece by filming his interests. It worked for Spielberg.

The Coens are so quirky and so exploratory with their subject matter I think they're still on the market for a masterpiece and that none of their films to date truly qualify because their appeal is not so universal. They're all above average in some ways, but, hey, I liked Barton Fink a whole lot more than Fargo, and I don't think many people subscribe to that notion (and for the record, I don't think either one is their masterpiece). I haven't seen No Country for Old Men yet, so we'll see how I feel after digesting a few more films.

I also agree with Grady that Kevin Smith actually has loads of potential that he has essentially squandered. He's too intelligent to be a complete hack, but he's completely misguided and arguably unoriginal, at least past Dogma. If you've ever heard him in interviews, though, I think one can safely assume that he has a massive insecurity complex. If he took more risks (aside from poop monsters and things), he would probably evolve into a great director, but his chops are happily juvenile because he chooses to be. Bad choice, yes. But not an indicator of his talent. Chasing Amy and Dogma are his two best films, though, and I think it's because they venture into heady territory with mature sensibilities.

And Christopher Nolan is a favorite of mine, and Memento is a strong, strong flick, but I think he's also got some searing potential. He never disappoints me, I like all of his films that I've seen to date, so I think he probably has the greatest potential toward a masterpiece of anyone. Memento is the best thing he has, but I think he can do better.

I can't think of anyone else who fits the description that I've been exposed to...but just wanted to weigh in months later because I liked this thread and felt the need to share :-)

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Smooth_J — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:39:35 GMT

Risselada:

I can understand why you would want to make a point if it if you were referring to a suggestion of a director or movie that someone has already named. You did name Fight Club, although I dont' think anyone mentioned David Fincher yet. But you could be guessing that people haven't named him because a lot of people might already consider Fight Club to be his masterpiece and you wanted to refute that. Do you think he has the potential to make a better movie though?
I really think that Fincher could create something better....I mean, Fight Club was amazing, I fricken love that movie, but he has the potential to create something better. I mean, Zodiac was very good, and so was Seven, but I still think Fight Club is the best of the bunch. His style is very good, and if I'm not mistaken, I think that Curious Case of Benjamin Button has a lot of promise.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Risselada — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:49:30 GMT

GradysGhost:
No, not genre. I mean it was really big and popular, but it seems to have only really garnered attention because of the woodchipper scene.

Hmmm, I don't know if you could really say that's the only reason it garned attention. It had amazingly well defined characters and acting with dialogue attached. The plot was simple but perfect with a tight ensemble. The woodchipper became sort of an icon, but I don't think if you had the background context and quirky Minnesota community it would have got much notice.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

GradysGhost — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:44:11 GMT

Risselada:

What does flavor-of-the-week mean to you exactly? What flavor is Fargo? You get that flavor weekly? If you mean it's just a genre piece, well that's pretty much all of the Coens work. All of their movies are different genres. ESPECIALLY The Man Who Wasn't There.

No, not genre. I mean it was really big and popular, but it seems to have only really garnered attention because of the woodchipper scene. Plus, you can safely say about Fargo, "That's soooo 1996!" That's all I meant. It's still one of my favorites of all time.

Risselada:
You didn't include Hard Eight in your links. Have you seen it? It's the only PT Anderson feature I haven't seen yet Is it as good as the rest?

I haven't seen it either. Couldn't tell ya.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Risselada — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:58:08 GMT

Thanks for the opinions Ryan!

GradysGhost:
The Coen Brothers: Fargo was great, but it's a flavor-of-the-week film. I'm going with The Man Who Wasn't There. I'm such a sucker for Scarlett Johansen.

What does flavor-of-the-week mean to you exactly? What flavor is Fargo? You get that flavor weekly? If you mean it's just a genre piece, well that's pretty much all of the Coens work. All of their movies are different genres. ESPECIALLY The Man Who Wasn't There.

GradysGhost:
Sofia Coppola: Lost in Translation. Hands down. If she ever tops this, I'd be surprised.

I think she just might be able to. If she did think how awesome that would be!

GradysGhost:
P.T. Anderson: Jesus, how does one decide on a single film of his? They're all masterpieces!

You didn't include Hard Eight in your links. Have you seen it? It's the only PT Anderson feature I haven't seen yet. Is it as good as the rest?

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

GradysGhost — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:38:54 GMT

Oh, yeah. For the record books:

The Coen Brothers: Fargo was great, but it's a flavor-of-the-week film. I'm going with The Man Who Wasn't There. I'm such a sucker for Scarlett Johansen.

Sofia Coppola: Lost in Translation. Hands down. If she ever tops this, I'd be surprised.

Spike Lee: Do the Right Thing. I'm an unnatural fan of Summer of Sam, but it doesn't come close to the poignancy of Do the Right Thing.

Quentin Tarantino: Pulp Fiction, but he's got the potential to do better. He keeps getting stuck in these genre films and he's losing his credibility as as "original" director.

Alfred Hitchcock: Rear Window. Suspenseful, inspired a recent remake (or "modernization").

Michel Gondry: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. A beautiful film that realizes the beauty of tragic love and also the beauty of raw, un-CGI'd cinema.

Stanley Kubrick: A Clockwork Orange. Actually, call it a toss-up between that and Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. They're both so hard on society, but they both say it very well. One warps you and leaves you disturbed, the other makes you laugh and wonder why you're laughing.

Ridley Scott: Blade Runner (Director's Cut, not original). I've always interpreted this movie as a commentary on the nature of our justice system, which seems to be a common theme in other movies based on/novels written by Philip K. Dick.

Christopher Nolan: Memento. An original use of the disjointed time editing style.

Danny Boyle: 28 Days Later. Like Trainspotting and all, but 28 Days Later actually redefined what it meant to make a horror movie. Since the release of this film, we have seen a dramatic increase in the quality of horror films. See The Descent for proof (but that's another British film, so does that disqualify my suggestion?).

P.T. Anderson: Jesus, how does one decide on a single film of his? They're all masterpieces!

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

GradysGhost — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:21:28 GMT

Okay, then, Risselada. I think you and I are on the exact same page. So we can begin discussing masterpieces instead of definitions. If anybody else wants to join in, go right ahead. The discussion is of our own personal opinion. That's what makes Spout so great (and also the IMDb message boards).

I have not seen Ed Wood. I've been trying to get my hands on a copy of it for years. I could order online, but I don't like paying for something that I don't already have in my hands. You may be right about it being his best movie, and you're spot on about both movies' themes of reality vs. fiction.

By the way, if anybody's seen The Chumscrubber, I would love to discuss it with you.

As for the original question...

I think Kevin Smith is a director who has a masterpiece in him, but hasn't yet conceived it. Sure, his films are gross and vile. Yes, he keeps getting sucked back into Jay and Silent Bob. His movies seem to be made for his friends, and those of us who like his movies just happen to be a lot like his friends. But Chasing Amy was the movie for me where I knew that he had it in him. Chasing Amy discussed a subject matter (homosexuality) that is put into a lot of movies these days. Unfortunately, these movies typically get called "Gay Film" and wind up being cult movies that never hit theaters or the shelves at Blockbuster. Either that or they turn into romantic comedies for a different crowd. The other theme of Chasing Amy (friendship) is one he deals with tentatively and tenderly.

I think Kevin Smith has some serious potential. He needs to read up on how to operate a camera in a way that it allows the audience to feel less like they're watching a movie and more like they're involved in the storyline. He also needs to stop casting Ben Affleck in leading roles. He needs to make another movie without Jay and Silent Bob (or at least throw them into the background, as in Chasing Amy), but not go into it thinking it's going to be his masterpiece (like he did with Jersey Girl).

I know someone's about to tell me I'm stupid and that Smith is a "hack" director, but I would still love to hear your thoughts. Sometimes I just need someone to tell me how much my idols suck for me to realize I've been just as in love with them as kids are in love with Mooby, the Golden Calf.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Risselada — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:39:48 GMT

Sure it makes sense. That's what I'm saying. I think it makes sense to everyone. To talk about what is a masterpiece is subjective. To me it's obvious.

But the dualism of subjectivity and objectivity are really illusion. That's why we seek to discuss and share our opinions.

So lets stop discussing what we should be discussing and just discuss it!

For instance I'd love to argue against Big Fish as Tim Burton's masterpiece. In fact it's my least favorite movie of his out of the eight that I have seen. I would name Ed Wood his masterpiece. And it seems like the public can't decide this one for us as both movies are tied for his highest rated feature film on IMDB.

But I would argue that the two movies explore the same themes but with some differing or even opposite conclusions. Both of them are about people telling fiction. In Big Fish the story teller tells stories of his life embellishing them to make them more fantastical. The conclusion of the movie seems to say this is OK. As if stories like this are needed because life just isn't interesting enough without making stuff up. That's how I see it.

Ed Wood is a guy who tells stories too, but he tells them in movies. So I don't think he's expecting you to think they are real. And not only that he's really bad at it. This movie shows the outrageousness and the obviousness of how fake his stories are. The stories are actually just the actors themselves trying to be someone else but their weird true quirks are revealed. The fabricated stories is contrasted with the much more interesting real life stories of the real people making the movies.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

GradysGhost — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:05:34 GMT

I think that everybody's going to have a different idea of what a masterpiece is and isn't. I'm a perfect example. I hate The Godfather. I can't stand it. It's boring. But nobody else thinks that.

If David Fincher has made a masterpiece, I think it's Seven. I like Fight Club, but I can't watch it start to finish anymore. I know what's coming. I've seen it too many times. I can quote the whole damn thing. Sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken.

Arie Posin's The Chumscrubber is a masterpiece to me. I think of it as a perfect story, a Shakespearian comedy of errors. Many people say the acting sucks, namely that of Justin Chatwin (War of the Worlds, The Invisible). A lot of folks think the story is highly unbelievable (which I think is the point of the movie).

Big Fish is Tim Burton's masterwork.

If Wes Anderson has one, it's Bottle Rocket, because every other movie I've ever seen of his (and I haven't seen Rushmore) sucks flat out.

Martin Scorcese doesn't have a masterpiece.

It's all a matter of personal opinion. But when a majority of people consider a movie a masterpiece, then it really is one. I suppose The Godfather is a masterpiece, even if I hate it, because it's considered to be one by so many people.

Does this make sense?

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Risselada — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:20:01 GMT

Also if you did want to speculate as to whether a director who has already passed away might have yet to have made their personal masterpiece this list may provide a few possibilities

http://www.listology.com/content_show.cfm/content_id.13832

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Risselada — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:18:48 GMT

Jimbell,

I definitely see what you are saying. I guess the fact that it's an illusion that you can separate objectivity/subjectivity was just obvious to me the whole time so I was just not exactly sure why you were brining it up.

I can understand why you would want to make a point if it if you were referring to a suggestion of a director or movie that someone has already named. You did name Fight Club, although I dont' think anyone mentioned David Fincher yet. But you could be guessing that people haven't named him because a lot of people might already consider Fight Club to be his masterpiece and you wanted to refute that. Do you think he has the potential to make a better movie though?

And obviously some directors you might speculate have yet to make their own masterpiece of your defenition #1, but will never make a masterpiece of your definition #2. I think your defiintion #3 is a totally different kind of definition in that it is a factor of both of the first two definitions.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

JimBell — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 06:21:00 GMT

Big R, work with me on this.

When we address the question of what directors have a masterpiece yet to come, it is important not to let hair-splitting definitions destroy a good question. But we should be aware that the term "masterpiece" is complicated because it has the two definitions quoted (1. the best of a person's work, and 2. a consummate piece) but also a third definition, which I'd like to add. That is, people have their personal favourite masterpieces which may not be classically great cinema. Although I am a woodworker, I once surveyed a dozen students in teh grad studies area of the English department--I'm sorry the institution did not have a film study department--and was amazed to find that not one of them listed as personal favourite some novel which was traditionally recognized as a masterpiece. Instead the novels had something specific to say to someone at some point in his or her life. MOst of the novels were little known and some not even particularly high quality. And, no, it doesn't matter one bit whether the author was alive or dead.

How does this third definition of "masterpiece" complicate our question about directors soon to produce a masterpiece? First, some people will say that a film by such and such a director is a masterpiece, but this assessment will be essentially personal in the sense of "that is where they are at in their life." Cautious people will keep these entusiasms to themselves. You know why. Because the judgment doesn't involve professional expertise etc. (Example: I think Cameron Crowe has made his "masterpiece": Say Anything. Personally, I loved this movie, and what put it over the top for me was the strong moral element, something I occasionally get on a hobby horse about, when a lot of other people couldn't care less about it. But is it really a masterpiece of cinema. I doubt it.)

Second, this personal element can be enlarged to a societal reaction. Because a certain social phenomena is sweeping the country, a lot of people can love movies that do not stand up to much scrutiny. (Example: Fight Club is a masterpiece to thousands of young Americans. But such widespread enthusiasm for a flawed film bears witness to the state of young males in our current society more than it does to the quality of the film.)

You can see how this complicates saying what director has a masterpiece on the cusp.

I hope this has been clearer to you than my last post.

Cheers,

JIMBELL

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Risselada — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:28:52 GMT

JimBell:

I think it is important not to get hung up on definitions. The question about directors yet to produce their masterpiece(s) is a good one, in essence. The discussion of "masterpiece", however, should alert us to the danger. Masterpiece, as a term, has three elements. First, the best of a director's body of work. As Big R has so elequently put it, this cannot be a turd sculpted like a football when all other turds have simply looked like turds. Which brings us to the second criterion: "a consummate example." But note that in both of these, someone (NOTE) has to do the judging against some criteria (NOTE).
So "masterpiece" is loaded: Who is judging by what? I think ultimately people are swayed as to what is a masterpiece by a) what the public says (e.g., THe Godfather) and b) what critics say (e.g., Citizen Kane).
But I think there is a more important definition--more personally powerful--one we'll all try to use: The film isnot only technically good but it resonatedswith me because of where I am at this point in my life. Stay with me. What would happen if you went around the English department and asked all the grad students what their favorite or most influential novels were? I can tell you. None of them would mention Dicken's Hard Times, Laurence's Sons and Lovers, Tolstoy's War and Peace, Melville's Moby Dick. No, they will mention obscure books like the New Zealand one about a fascist take-over of the county, "Because that book made me realize that politics DOES matter in my life--after I'd spent years believing what Bob Dylan told me, that politics is what hits the fan." And so on.
In other words, for a movie to be a personal masterpiece, it has to have some special connection with us. When I say that The Princess Bride is my fav movie of all times, it says maybe more about me than about the movie. To the perceptive and persistant, it will reveal that I have read and believed Northrop Frye. When I say the movie I've watched the most times is Casablanca, it says something about me as well as the movie. So, in conclusion, I'l lbet that most of us will be nominating our personal masterpieces but quietly letting the tsunami of public and professional opinion use and apply the label.

Well Jim, for one I am actually not certain as to whether if you asked all English grad students what they favorite or morst influential novel was that a couple of them wouldn't say Moby Dick. I haven't actually read it but I've had English major friends speak about how it's one of their favorites and read passages that they claimed were mind blowing and influential.

But I don't know if that's even relevent because the topic here is directors who have yet to make their masterpieces, so I would have figured that flimmakers who are dead are out of the equation. All of the novelests you named there are dead as far as I know.

Yes, probabably many people will be nominating our personal masterpieces when talking about masterpieces. But does that alter whether or not we believe a certain director has a better movie in them or not? Or are you saying that the method of looking at public opinion for what's a masterpieces is the best way to go in this situation? Or are you saying this entire topic of conversation is totally fruitless?

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

stuntman_James — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:24:20 GMT

This is all subject to personal assessments....

I think that Robert Rodriguiez has a film in him that can be considered a masterpiece to some...

Wes Anderson is on that cusp

Sophia Coppola is going to have a killer film one day

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

JimBell — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 07:09:34 GMT

I think it is important not to get hung up on definitions. The question about directors yet to produce their masterpiece(s) is a good one, in essence. The discussion of "masterpiece", however, should alert us to the danger. Masterpiece, as a term, has three elements. First, the best of a director's body of work. As Big R has so elequently put it, this cannot be a turd sculpted like a football when all other turds have simply looked like turds. Which brings us to the second criterion: "a consummate example." But note that in both of these, someone (NOTE) has to do the judging against some criteria (NOTE).

So "masterpiece" is loaded: Who is judging by what? I think ultimately people are swayed as to what is a masterpiece by a) what the public says (e.g., THe Godfather) and b) what critics say (e.g., Citizen Kane).

But I think there is a more important definition--more personally powerful--one we'll all try to use: The film isnot only technically good but it resonatedswith me because of where I am at this point in my life. Stay with me. What would happen if you went around the English department and asked all the grad students what their favorite or most influential novels were? I can tell you. None of them would mention Dicken's Hard Times, Laurence's Sons and Lovers, Tolstoy's War and Peace, Melville's Moby Dick. No, they will mention obscure books like the New Zealand one about a fascist take-over of the county, "Because that book made me realize that politics DOES matter in my life--after I'd spent years believing what Bob Dylan told me, that politics is what hits the fan." And so on.

In other words, for a movie to be a personal masterpiece, it has to have some special connection with us. When I say that The Princess Bride is my fav movie of all times, it says maybe more about me than about the movie. To the perceptive and persistant, it will reveal that I have read and believed Northrop Frye. When I say the movie I've watched the most times is Casablanca, it says something about me as well as the movie. So, in conclusion, I'l lbet that most of us will be nominating our personal masterpieces but quietly letting the tsunami of public and professional opinion use and apply the label.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Risselada — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:10:58 GMT

mattypro:
Huh...Rizzo, I find it very interesting that you keep refering to general acceptance or popular polls to decide if something is a masterpiece. I'm not sure I would list that as the most important criteria for "masterpiece."

I guess I didn't realize that I was specifically doing this, but I don't know that it was my intention to indicate that such things were the most important criteria. I think if something is a masterpiece it generally would eventually be identified as such though, don't you think? I mean, how else can we talk with other people about "masterpieces" if it's something people have never heard or if there is no general appreciation for it.

mattypro:
Hmmm, I suppose these two comments do bring up the question of definition again. Are we talking about masterpiece in relation ONLY to the single director? Or are we talking about masterpiece in relation to the art of making movies.

It feels like there is a nice middle ground to be had here, but Im not sure everyone agrees on what that is. It seems to me that we are talking about both a bit. The movie which is going to be called a masterpiece or the director that we are hoping has a masterpiece is both related to the catalogue of material as a whole while being specifically compared to the personal material. For instance, Wes Anderson was mentioned: some say that he has yet to create a masterpiece where others are talking about Rushmore or The Royal Tenenbaums. However, it was mentioned that his movies have made it onto the "Criterion Collection." So it seems necessary to be personally successful or outstanding, while also being lauded by critics or the general public.

To participate in the original question, although I am a huge fan of his work so far, I think that Wes Anderson could make a better movie.

Well looking up "masterpiece" at dictionary.com brings up definitions of both

1.	a person's greatest piece of work, as in an art.

2.	anything done with masterly skill: a masterpiece of improvisation.

3.	a consummate example of skill or excellence of any kind: The chef's cake was a masterpiece.

If you are just saying a person's greatest work then it's true that compared to many other artists it might not be anywhere near what you would consider a masterpiece. If I was a sculptor and you were trying to speculate as to whether or not I have already created my personal masterpiece, and so far the greatest thing I'd produced was a turd that kind of looks like it's shaped like a football, then the whole question might even seem to be worth discussing when looking from the outside. But relative to my own work, it might be the best thing I ever create, espeically if all my other turds have always just looked like regular turds. But to anyone else, it's all just turds and will never measure up to The Thinker or whatever.

mattypro:
I do have to say that I am a little scared of listing directors that HAVE made thier masterpiece. I took some art classes in college and one of my profs once said that you should hope to never make a masterpiece, but only to keep striving for better and better work. Cheesy?? Definately. Somehow vaguely inspiring?? Unfortunately...yes.

I'll agree with that!

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

mattypro — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:13:57 GMT

Risselada:
I'm even excited for some directors that have fully established themselves in my mind, making their own masterpieces already. But its exciting to think that something even better is still on the way. The Coen brothers' latest film No Country for Old Men is currently their highest rated movie on IMDB. Although I know sometimes movies that have only been seen in limited release can get huge IMDB ratings and then come down once the general public absorbs it.

Huh...Rizzo, I find it very interesting that you keep refering to general acceptance or popular polls to decide if something is a masterpiece. I'm not sure I would list that as the most important criteria for "masterpiece."

Also, Indieabby: I hope to high heaven that Zach Snyder can make something better than 300. If 300 is a masterpiece of film making...well...that sucks. That movie was bad. Lots of potential.....but ugh. I REALLY wanted that movie to be good. sigh.....

Hmmm, I suppose these two comments do bring up the question of definition again. Are we talking about masterpiece in relation ONLY to the single director? Or are we talking about masterpiece in relation to the art of making movies.

To participate in the original question, although I am a huge fan of his work so far, I think that Wes Anderson could make a better movie.

I do have to say that I am a little scared of listing directors that HAVE made thier masterpiece. I took some art classes in college and one of my profs once said that you should hope to never make a masterpiece, but only to keep striving for better and better work. Cheesy?? Definately. Somehow vaguely inspiring?? Unfortunately...yes.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Risselada — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:07:53 GMT

tmoney:
Jymkata:

I think Soderberg is a good pick for this topic, he is very talented but nothing feels like a masterpiece to me.

Agreed! I think Soderberg is a hit or miss. If he can pull together a hit in a big way I think he could create a masterpiece, but so far, you're right. Hints at a masterpiece but no masterpiece. Not even Sex, Lies.

From what I've seen of Soderberg, he's got some great ideas but he just feels too smug about things to really break beyond himself, if you know what I mean. I think most masterpieces are a situation where the artist is able to somehow use their talents but reach beyond themselves into something mysterious and greater.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

tmoney — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:13:11 GMT

Jymkata:
I think Soderberg is a good pick for this topic, he is very talented but nothing feels like a masterpiece to me.

Agreed! I think Soderberg is a hit or miss. If he can pull together a hit in a big way I think he could create a masterpiece, but so far, you're right. Hints at a masterpiece but no masterpiece. Not even Sex, Lies.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Jymkata — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:53:55 GMT

When I think of a Wes Anderson masterpiece I think of Bottle Rocket. I know it's a "small" film but I think it's a perfect little comedy. I love that movie!

I think Soderberg is a good pick for this topic, he is very talented but nothing feels like a masterpiece to me.

The Coens have had so many that are perfectly on-pitch in their own oddball way, but I don't think they will ever win over a mass audience enough to be universally claimed a masterpiece.

I don't know why, but I really did not like Paris, Texas. It was so down-beat and slow and it just screamed indie movie and I didn't get the point. Wings of Desire was great though.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

tmoney — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 05:34:44 GMT

Oh crap I forgot about Wings of Desire. I have not yet seen it, but from it's reputation, I've heard it is a masterpiece. Scratch Wim Wenders off that list until I see Wings of Desire. Thanks Shaun.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

ShaunHuston — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 05:02:48 GMT

tmoney:

Wim Wenders - Paris, Texas would be his classic, and Don't Come Knocking was great, but I think he's got a masterpiece to create. (Based on those two films, I haven't seen his others).

It is difficult to think about Wim Wenders in this context and not consider Wings of Desire (1987). Give it a watch. An argument can be made that this is his master work.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

tmoney — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:44:35 GMT

I just wonder if a director's legacy will be remembered for his Classic, or his Masterpiece. For example, I think for Errol Morris, his classic would be The Thin Blue Line, and his Masterpiece is The Fog of War. I think a lot of directors like Wes Anderson has made his classic, I would argue that would be the Royal Tenenbaums, but maybe he's got a masterpiece yet to come? Some directors, it is the same, like I think the Coen Brothers made their masterpiece and classic with Fargo. Just a thought to ponder.

Here are some that I think have yet to make their masterpieces:

David Gordon Green - George Washington was phenomenal, All The Real Girls was amazing, Undertow was good, but he is still very young, and may just pull out something that will knock us all out.

Spike Lee - This is a BIG maybe. It would be near impossible to top Do The Right Thing, but I think he's talented enough.

Cameron Crowe - Almost Famous and Vanilla Sky were good, but not great. I think he could make a masterpiece.

Spike Jonze - BJM was alright. Adaptation was amazing. I think his next kaufman collab may be a masterpiece.

Danny Boyle - He seems to like to mess around with genre films. 28 days later was in my opinion amazing, and i can't wait to see sunshine. His classic would be Trainspotting, but I think he can do much better.

Wim Wenders - Paris, Texas would be his classic, and Don't Come Knocking was great, but I think he's got a masterpiece to create. (Based on those two films, I haven't seen his others).

I had hopes for Sam Mendes, but I think he'll be forever at the mediocre level, after a good (not great) American Beauty, and an above average Road to Perdition. I don't see his talents going anywhere.

I would say that Gondry has made two masterpieces with Eternal Sunshine and Science of Sleep.

I think if Malick ever makes the rumoured Tree of Life, it may be his masterpiece. (Even though I would qualify every single one of his films masterpieces in their own right. I think the only director I know of who's every film is a masterpiece.)

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Risselada — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:20:10 GMT

I guess it's just a question of if out of all of the films that a director has currently made, if you think there is still some potential in them to create something that will be considered even better.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

ShaunHuston — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:00:06 GMT

This question got me thinking about the nature of "masterpieces." What makes a film a "masterpiece" and is it necessarily the case that all great filmmakers will necessarily be marked by having made at least one? Quint's examples of Scorsese and Coppola made me think about other directors from that generation, and I began wondering about Robert Altman and what his masterpiece might be. I'm not sure he has one, but he does have a significant body of work. Maybe there are filmmakers who are notable for their filmographies as a whole rather than for one or two transcendent films. More in the spirit of the question, I also thought of Steven Soderbergh. Soderbergh is clearly a skilled, intelligent, and versatlie director, but as good as many of his movies are, I'm not sure I would pin "masterpiece" on any of them. I'm also not sure what such a movie would look like. Maybe this is also the case for Wes Anderson, although I can agree that Rushmore seems close to perfect as a "Wes Anderson Film." For the Coens, it's easier to come up with candidate films, but somehow it seems too soon to annoit one of their works as a "masterpiece" just yet.

Which brings me back to the first question, which is what makes a masterpiece. Above, I used the word "transcendent" and I guess when I think of something as a masterpiece I think about it having some quality of "transcendence," that is, somehow being beyond what we consider possible in a film. That's a pretty high bar, and it seems like something that is likely to be rare. There's still the question of how you know "transcendence" when you see it. It seems like something that you would have to experience in the moment of viewing, meaning that "masterpieces" can't be minted after the fact. But maybe there's another type of masterpiece, one that embodies everything that makes a director's film's worthwhile (the Rushmore example). In that case, you would need to let some time pass before coming to realize that a particular film was a given director's master work. There are certainly films that I've come to appreciate more with time and on repeated viewings.

Quint lists Michel Gondry as a director yet to make his masterpiece, but I think a case could be made for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, a film that wasn't transcendent for me when I first saw it, but which I've come to love with additional viewings. I also think that it's a movie that was transcendent for some when they first saw it in the theater. Which leads to the question of consensus and whether a masterpiece has to be acknowledged by multiple others before attaining it's master status. Looking to consensus to designate a director's masterpiece seems to run the risk of overlooking less popular, but perhaps artistically significant works (and filmmakers). So, the central quesiton remains: what makes a masterpiece?

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Risselada — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 06:04:59 GMT

joem18b:
Spoke to both of them. Ethan says "better." Joel says "worse." Knuckleheads!

Ha! Of course. You'll never get a straight or consistant answer from them about anything in interviews.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

indieabby88 — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 01:02:27 GMT

Risselada:
I also like a lot of Wes Anderson's stuff, but I am still almost sure that he has a real masterpiece in him somewhere. Even though his last couple movies have been great, I will be very disappointed if he doesn't come up with something even better eventually.

Yeah, I debated that one for a while. "The Royal Tenenbaums" is my favorite of his movies, but is it really a masterpiece? I don't know. I'd like to see if he can do more, and I'm really looking forward to "The Darjeeling Limited." I hear exciting things.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

joem18b — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:29:00 GMT

Spoke to both of them. Ethan says "better." Joel says "worse." Knuckleheads!

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Risselada — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:05:54 GMT

joem18b:
Actually, I listened to the latest "All Movie Talk" podcast yesterday and one of its segments included a discussion of the Coen brothers' movies. One of the podcasters said that Intolerable Cruelty was not as good as their previous films because the brothers had not conceived and developed the movie from scratch as with their others, but instead had picked it up from someone else and finished it off. So I just took that as gospel and repeated it here.

So I don't get it. Are you saying they are better or worse when they do their "own" material?

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

joem18b — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:16:40 GMT

Risselada:
joem18b:
In their defense, the Coens weren't working with their own original material in this one; they picked up somebody else's project, and it shows.
First of all, why is working with someone else's material "in their defense"? :)
And also, according to IMDB, even though it's based on a novel, they did write the screenplay.

Actually, I listened to the latest "All Movie Talk" podcast yesterday and one of its segments included a discussion of the Coen brothers' movies. One of the podcasters said that Intolerable Cruelty was not as good as their previous films because the brothers had not conceived and developed the movie from scratch as with their others, but instead had picked it up from someone else and finished it off. So I just took that as gospel and repeated it here.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Risselada — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:04:11 GMT

dj4our:

Well, for me I can't see a film of his being any better than "Rushmore" which is perfect in every way.

Well it's not even my favorite of his, but I guess it's a matter of opinion. Heh three of his movies have already been on the Criterion Collection.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

dj4our — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:33:16 GMT

Well, for me I can't see a film of his being any better than "Rushmore" which is perfect in every way.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Risselada — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:21:35 GMT

I also like a lot of Wes Anderson's stuff, but I am still almost sure that he has a real masterpiece in him somewhere. Even though his last couple movies have been great, I will be very disappointed if he doesn't come up with something even better eventually.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Risselada — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:19:39 GMT

joem18b:
In their defense, the Coens weren't working with their own original material in this one; they picked up somebody else's project, and it shows.

First of all, why is working with someone else's material "in their defense"? :)

And also, according to IMDB, even though it's based on a novel, they did write the screenplay.

It's definitely not the first time they've written a screenplay based on other material.

The Ladykillers based off the original british film

Intolerable Cruelty seems to be based off of someone else's story. I know the screenplay was rewritten and floated around for many years.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? from Homer's Odyssey

The Big Lebowski is in many ways a retelling of The Big Sleep (a novel first)

Miller's Crossing was taken from the novels of Dashiell Hammett most notably The Glass Key

Several of their other movies are specific homages to certain other movies or styles or eras of movies

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

joem18b — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 05:47:42 GMT

indieabby88:

Yeah...the Coens have made so many good movies, it'd be hard for me to single out one as better than another, although there are a couple I'd peg as sub-par ("Intolerable Cruelty").

In their defense, the Coens weren't working with their own original material in this one; they picked up somebody else's project, and it shows.

But having said that, I've watched and enjoyed "Intolerable Cruelty" twice. I think I like it for the same reason I like "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" and the Ocean movies, viz., sometimes it's a pleasure to sit back and watch beautiful Hollywood stars up there onscreen, having fun making a picture.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

indieabby88 — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:26:13 GMT

Risselada:
I'm even excited for some directors that have fully established themselves in my mind, making their own masterpieces already. But its exciting to think that something even better is still on the way. The Coen brothers' latest film No Country for Old Men is currently their highest rated movie on IMDB. Although I know sometimes movies that have only been seen in limited release can get huge IMDB ratings and then come down once the general public absorbs it.

Yeah...the Coens have made so many good movies, it'd be hard for me to single out one as better than another, although there are a couple I'd peg as sub-par ("Intolerable Cruelty"). They're so consistently good, I'm afraid a masterpiece might just blow my mind. "No Country for Old Men" looks flipping amazing, though.

Directors yet to make their masterpiece (according to me):

-Zack Snyder: he's still pretty new to the game, I think, and I'd like to know if he's capable of more than "300"

-James Gunn: "Slither" ranks among my favorites, and I'd love to see more.

-Guillermo Del Toro: Hey, if Alfonso Cuaron gets listed, I can list Del Toro. "Pan's Labyrinth" is every bit as good (maybe better) than "Children of Men," and Del Toro has less of a track record. I think "Pan" is Del Toro coming into his own as a director. We'll be seeing more of him to be sure.

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

mythman — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:05:56 GMT

My unconceived children

Re: Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

Risselada — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:07:34 GMT

Wow that's a good question. I'll have to think about it more, but I'm curious to see what other people say.

I'm trying to think of younger directors who have made a few films that are pretty great, but not the greatest. I keep thinking of people that I'm not sure if you would consider what that have already done to be the greatest yet.

I'm thinking maybe Darren Aronofsky. I know a lot of people consider Requiem for a Dream a modern masterpiece, but I think he could do better. I still have yet to see The Fountain, but I know there was enough dissention that it still can't have been a masterpiece.

I'm even excited for some directors that have fully established themselves in my mind, making their own masterpieces already. But its exciting to think that something even better is still on the way. The Coen brothers' latest film No Country for Old Men is currently their highest rated movie on IMDB. Although I know sometimes movies that have only been seen in limited release can get huge IMDB ratings and then come down once the general public absorbs it.

Directors who have yet to make their masterpiece

quint — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:51:53 GMT

I was thinking about this question recently, so I'll pose it to the group. What directors do you feel have yet to make their masterpiece? The sense I mean here is that say Coppola or Scorcese. They've done it. They can rest on their laurels if they like. But who among today's respected directors has yet to make the masterpiece that is clearly within them?

I had originally said this in the context of Oliver Assayas who I think has yet to fully blossom. I would say that Del Toro did his with Pan's Labyrinth. No matter what he does now, there will be some indulgence. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings put him over the top.

Anyway, here are some of my picks:

1. Oliver Assayas

2. Michel Gondry

3. Alfonso Cuarón