Who was/is the best American director?

Who was/is the best American director?

My vote

Kubrick

Nolan

Snyder

...

Sterile, horrible action, pretentious

>Nolan
pleb also isn't that cunt is a brit?

Nevermind I change my vote to Tarantino

wat

>Best Ever
Scorsese
>Best now
Steve Mcqueen.

He's trans-Chicagoan

John Huston
John Cassavetes
Terrence Malick

It's Coppola

DW Griffith

Ford
Cassavetes
Peckinpah
Altman

Steve McQueen is English

>Coppola
name one kino of his? (dont say godfather like a normie)

Literally who?

mfw no one has posted david fincher

Welles or Ford

>david fincher
pleb

...

John Ford

Zack Snyder

The Conversation

Thanks user

Spielberg

That's a solid fucking vote

I'd say either him or John Ford

The Magnum Opus

>Peckinpah

Mah nigga

This might be my favorite movie ever. It's violent, desparate, outraged, sensitive and beautiful

Fincher r carp

>Scorsese
>hasn't made a good movie in nearly 20 years
>McQueen
>british and shit

these are both correct choices

DW Griffith

Made over 500 works and perfected an entire medium

Coppola or Kubrick

Ford copied Griffith

Howard Hughes

wyler
lumet
wise
stroheim
walsh
kubrick
kazan
avery
keaton

>there are plebs itt voting for Kubrick, an emotionless inhuman machine of sterile geometry and as cold as the void of 2001

Seriously?

Joe Swanberg.

He's nowhere near as good as the directors he regularly praised like Tarkovsky, Altman, Bergman and Spielberg

All garbage except Stroheim and walsh.
>avery
The General was already done before Keaton but nobody did Griffith before him

What did Altman do new that wasn't already done by Jean Renoir and even further back, Griffith

>Bergman
pic-related. existentialism was already covered in the 10's even by other swedes.

>Tarko/v/sky
Long takes, nonfactors, virtuoso camera movements all Griffith and a whole host of other silent directors. But Griffith invented the soft focus for the "dreamlike" shit.

>American

Yes they were influenced, but the styles and subjects they became known for were their own.

There's a quote by Tarkovsky that was like "Although I very much admire Kurosawa, Bergman, Bresson (and others) I will never try to emulate them because to do so would mean not having my own voice"

The shit he did wasn't new though. Intolerance, Citizen Kane, Abraham Lincoln 1930, The Patriot 1928, and Phantom 1922 did his schtick ten times better

Are you talking about the overall look/style or the subject matter? Because many of those movies did nothing that Tarkovsky tried.

It's like saying "No one can possibly make a good action epic or political movie because Griffith made Birth of a Nation"

beat you to it

Deserves a mention.

A neurotic woe-is-me director with little to no cinematic flair or invention

There is only One

American directors have to embody America - being a Chad and a pseudointellectual

>No one can possibly make a good action epic or political movie because Griffith made Birth of a Nation
Might as well not even try to. Everybody knows film peaked by 1939

>Because many of those movies did nothing that Tarkovsky tried
What did Tarshitsky try. Long takes already done in silent era, remembering one's life done a million times since the beginning of cinema, using different tints for different time Griffith, existentialism in the '10's, all been done before.

Do you watch any films made after 1910?

>short films

Yeah but anything after '39 is just a guilty pleasure with a few exceptions

Shorts from the silent era are A-OK under certain circumstances.

>I only read Sumerian shopping lists, anything after that is just a rehash

Griffith was a pioneer and master of tableau-style cinematography. He made images worthy of being hung on a wall

>I don't look at any picture past the daguerreotype
>everything after is just derivative trash

Now the adjacent comparison

In terms of innovation, Griffith. In terms of largest quantity of great films, either Altman or Huston. But my favorite living American filmmaker is Paul Schrader.

>existentialism was already covered

>Existence's biggest questions, the only truly important ones, were 'already covered.'

wow what a sad existence

name one bad film by dw griffith

This is why film will never be art. The "patricians" are too busy playing cartoons and videogames while ignoring the history of the medium. Meanwhile fans of literature gladly read Sumerian and Greek works.

Also, film was created during the industrial age. It rapidly evolved and arguably stinted. This is why you see so many flicks before the 50's that never move on the recent Sight and Sound poll.

Name an existentialist film that did anything new. Wild Strawberries was already done in 1920

>This is why film will never be art.
Because people like you proudly say that everything is shit after the initial innovations?

King Vidor already answered pretty big questions

>Meanwhile fans of literature gladly read Sumerian and Greek works.
They also read stuff written after 300 BC you know

This is why film will never be art. The "patricians" are too busy saying film peaked in 1910 while ignoring everything that happened after that.

>Meanwhile fans of literature gladly read Sumerian and Greek works.
Except no one think that Sumerian works are the pinnacle of the literature, you dumb shitposter

>Griffith
>not both
I can guarantee you've never seen more than 5 Griffith features. He made over 500 works and not a single one bad with each of them being a milestone benchmark. Altman has tons of unoriginal shitty tripe like that fucking 80's buddy movie he did and Popeye. Huston's alright but Maltese Falcoln was already adapted in 1931 better and Raoul Walsh is far superior in directorial skill

Wolf of Wall Street and Silence are two of Scorsese's best

I haven't seen a bad one, but I've seen a miniscule amount of his filmography. My point is he invented and reinvented constantly throughout his career. Comparing his films to those by modern filmmakers is an exercise in futility.

see

No one said film peaked at 1910 except for you though. I said 1939 was a golden year.

Sure but most consider Ulysses the greatest piece of literature meanwhile Griffith released the filmic equivalent years before it was even written

Rumble fish

we get it man. now go away

No

>Sure but most consider Ulysses the greatest piece of literature

I'm just jumping in here but please don't talk about subjects you know little about.

Yeah I know he's right. Griffith was a peak for the medium

>He made over 500 works and not a single one bad
Here we go, this guy's seen Griffith's lost films as well

overlapping dialogue

>mfw reading that pile of utter drivel that was Gravity's Rainbow

Frank Capra.

Can you post Griffith's Lolita? I need a fap.

Don't imply anything past Ulysses could possibly be considered the greatest work of literature, plebbit. I'd say it makes you look dumb, but I realize that's your median mode.

Why do you hate cinema?
Why do you want everyone to hate Griffith?

Don Quixote and Moby Dick are far, far more valid choices than fucking Ulysses

That shit was done in 1929 by Mamoulian, babby.

>anything past
Looks like you can't read. And you've only proven my point more.

Picking just one is impossible.
Top 5:
Fuller
Welles
Scorsese
Malick
Hawks

>meanwhile Griffith released the filmic equivalent years before it was even written
Which is?

Griffith never made garbage, sorry not sorry.

Yeah, I don't understand why you made that comment about something past Ulysses. Nowhere in my post did I ever make any comment about something following Ulysses being a better piece of literature. You're dumb.

>Fuller

Intolerance

>Lolita is garbage
What are you even doing on Sup Forums apart from pretending that you've seen The Greatest Thing in Life?