A free rag on the subway to work this morning carried the news in a few grafs: Ingrid Thulin, who so memorably played Marianne, the melancholy daughter-in-law to Victor Sjöström’s Professor Isak Borg in Smultronstället (Wild Strawberries), had died. Despite the distractions of an overful rush-hour carriage, this piece of news triggered an introspective mood. That movie was a revelation to me. I try to watch it at least once a year (and recently more often, now that I understand what they are actually saying to each other).
Ingrid Thulin is perhaps less well known than the rest of the Swedish “rätt pack”, Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson and Liv Ullmann (and also Ingrid Bergman and Pernilla August — who am I forgetting?), but she was certainly their equal in every way. She may well have been Sweden’s best-ever actress.
Her death underscores the inevitable passing of a great era in Swedish film. Ingmar Bergman hasn’t left us yet; the wiley ol’ bastard is likely to outlive us all. But one day the greatest living director will die, so I sometimes entertain myself by asking who would replace him by default? Woody Allen for his early stuff? My only problem is that I forget who is alive and who dead, so I fear I am missing somebody obvious.
Then there is the separate question of who is the greatest working director today: I don’t feel either Bergman or Allen have had the lock on this category for a while. For this latter category, I nominate Ridley Scott, though with an audience (of one) award to Lukas Moodysson.
Lars von Trier.
Thanks for your link, by the way.
Ridley Scott? I have to imagine you’re doing this to a) push Felix into a frothy fury of cineastic indignation, or because, b) you’re conflating “greatest working director” with “person who directed one of my favorite movies.”
Partly to bait Felix, ys, though he hasn’t bitten yet, but I am being serious. He hits mainstream with Alien and Blade Runner, the two best Scifi movies ever (with perhaps room at the top for Stanley Kubrick, the previous greatest working director) then more recently directs Gladiator and Black Hawk Down. Lars von Trier is also a very good bet, though.
OK, I’ll bite. Firstly, if you’re disqualifying Bergman and Allen because their best work is long in the past, it’s a bit rich holding up Alien and Blade Runner, both of which are more than 20 years old.
If we confine ourselves to the past ten years, we’ve got White Squall, GI Jane, Gladiator, Hannibal, Black Hawk Down, and Matchstick Men. Looking at that list, I see absolutely no indication that we’re talking about “the greatest working director today”. I mean, you might like a couple of those films, but certainly not all of them, and none of them even approaches true greatness.
In the same time period, Paul Thomas Anderson, to take a more or less random example, has directed Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Punch-Drunk Love. All of them approach greatness, they’re all gorgeous to look at, are innovative and interesting, and he’s showing astonishing consistency. Not a 1492: Conquest of Paradise in the bunch.
So if anybody was going to take Kubrick’s crown, I’d say it was much more likely to be PT Anderson than Ridley Scott, no?
Punch-Drunk Love was dreadful, Boogie nights everybody saw because of the porn angle but it wasn’t that amazing otherwise, Magnolia was terrific (and I never heard of Hard Eight). All in all, no, doesn’t outshine Ridley Scott. Failures like 1492 are not black marks in my book, they show risk-taking.
But as we are casting about for alternatives, I would not object to Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Steven Spielberg, The Coens, Pixar and Quentin Tarantino.
all those names above are trash compared to the mighty Takashi Miike.
OK, we disagree on PT Anderson: de gustibus non est disputandum, and all that. If you don’t like his films, then you’re not going to consider him the greatest anything. But objectively, he does have a good claim to being the best director of the past 10 years, while Ridley Scott really doesn’t.
Let’s look at your other names. Over the period in question, Jeunet has made precisely 2 films: Amelie and Alien 4. Not good enough.
Spielberg has made Jurassic Park II, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, AI, Minority Report, and Catch Me If You Can. Some very good films there, a couple of clunkers, but sure, he’s got a claim.
The Coens have actually been stronger, I think over the past 10 years. The Hudsucker Proxy, Fargo, The Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou, The Man Who Wasn’t There, and Intolerable Cruelty — all are very interesting films which push the envelope and are stuffed full of great visual ideas. They could definitely get the prize.
Pixar? That’s a studio, sweetheart. John Lasseter has done Toy Story, A Bug’s Life, and Toy Story II. All of which are great films, so he has the consistency down, but I’m not sure he has the range necessary for the gong.
As for QT, Pulp Fiction counts as past 10 years, which is lucky for him. Other than that, all there is is one segment of Four Rooms, Jackie Brown, and Kill Bill Vol 1. Not really enough meat there for Greatest Working Director.
But all of them, yes, could probably face up strongly against Ridley Scott.
You forget City of Lost Children for Jeunet, and I was thinking Delicatessen counts too: You’re the one with the arbitrary 10-year limit; I say older films count if the newer ones are great, hence Quentin with Kill Bill.
Meanwhile, Scott makes 2 of the very best films over the past few years.
Sorry, my bad, City of Lost Children counts. And it is a great film.
But no matter how much you liked Black Hawk Down, you simply can’t say it’s “one of the very best films over the past few years”. That’s just ridiculous hyperbole. Remember that “the past few years” includes 1999, the annus mirabilis of contemporary cinema, which had everything from The Straight Story to Titus to Toy Story II to Being John Malkovich. All of which will be studied by cineastes long after BHD is consigned to the footnotes of film history.
Spielberg. No question.
No director is more influential. He invented the Hollywood blockbuster with “Jaws” (a year before “Star Wars”) and his work, although often predictable or mawkish, has also demonstrated considerable scope (“Amistad”, “The Color Purple”), a willingness to handle tough subjects (those, plus “Schindler’s List”), created some of the most beloved and timeless characters in cinema (Indiana Jones, ET), innovated the craft of filmmaking (the battle scenes from “saving Private Ryan” for starters) and illuminated the most dominant social phenomenon of the post-WWII world: urban America (“ET” and just about everything else – evident even in films like “Empire of the Sun”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “Minority Report”).
He is one of the only directors around with an empathy for children, who can evoke their sense of wonder (“ET”, “AI”) Even his clunkers (“1942”, “Eyes Wide Shut”) get noticed.
Steven Spielberg is a commercial and critical giant, and there is not a single director in the world who can match his resume, scope, technical ability or his global influence – certainly not as a package, even if many directors are his superior in bits and pieces.
michael mann.
peter weir and mike leigh as runner ups.
steven spielberg is disqualified for schmaltz, ridley scott for blackhawk down.
Who indeed could forget her portrayal of Marianne, the melancholy daughter-in-law to Victor Sjöström’s Professor Isak Borg in Smultronstället. Not I, not even for an instant. I always though that the assymetry of their relationship was the essential release valve by which they adjusted to the world’s shocks.
Face it, Eurof, it’s a schmaltzy world we live in. I’ll take this back when British society stops getting mawkish and looney over the late Princess Diana.
Here’s an obit that actually does her justice.