World's Best 40 Directors by Rolling Stone

The New York Times just dropped their list of the World's Best 40 Directors.
Check out the list here

So, David Lynch is sitting at number one. When you actually sit back and look at his whole body of work—that sheer, undeniable originality he brings to the screen—it honestly makes perfect sense. 👍

A good chunk of my favorites made the cut too—Martin Scorsese is at #2, plus Terrence Malick, Abbas Kiarostami, and David Cronenberg.

I'm a bit stumped on why Steven Soderbergh, Spike Jonze, or Quentin Tarantino even made the list, though. 🙄

As for the rest... I can't really say. I haven't seen enough of their stuff to form an opinion.

It’s the usual suspects, really—you’ve got Samira, Wong Kar-wai, Michael Haneke, Béla Tarr, and Takashi Miike all sitting there...

Jessica Nguyen85 said:I have no clue why Steven Soderbergh, Spike Jonze, or Tarantino even made the cut. 🙄

.

Well, I do... especially when it comes to Jonze... 🙂)) 🙏

Spike Jonze is actually incredible👍

Don't come for Quentin Tarantino. The guy has delivered absolute masterpieces... those monologues are legendary... I'm glad they included Andy Serkis and Lana Wachowski on the list, mostly because The Matrix was easily one of the best films ever made...

You've gotta be kidding me, I was actually just about to start a whole new thread about this exact list. 😁

I'm honestly pretty relieved to see Trier sitting so low on the rankings. 😁

Let people complain if they want, but this is the definitive list of the top 40 directors AFTER Steven Spielberg. He’s the greatest filmmaker to ever do it, period. The man is the reason movies actually feel like movies. Period.

Honestly, this list is a bit of a joke. How can you include the Wachowski siblings while leaving out names like Orson Welles, Steven Spielberg, or Sedlar? It just doesn't hold water.

In my view, those two siblings managed to pull off one decent film—though I'll concede it was revolutionary to some, even if most would agree 😁—and then followed it up with two pieces of garbage. Sure, some might call them "solid efforts," but let's be real: there are directors out there who have produced far more work, and significantly better films, than they ever could.

I don't know, man... personally, I don't think David Lynch is quite on that level where he deserves the top spot. Honestly? I'd take Pedro Almodovar, who's sitting at number 15, over him any day of the week.

Glad Moodysson made the cut... honestly, he should've been in the top ten. Anyway, where the hell is Amenabar?

lonescout2 said:Yeah, I have to admit that list feels a little bit off to me, especially since the Wachowski siblings made the cut but Orson Welles didn't...

Well, just keep in mind that this is specifically a list of directors who are still with us.

Hmm, I suppose I was a bit off base there 🙂

But Quentin Tarantino is alive and kicking 😁

lonescout2 said:Yeah, that list is a bit sketchy if you consider the Wachowski brothers are on there, yet Orson Welles, Steven Spielberg, and Quentin Tarantino are nowhere to be found....

I mean, those Wachowski siblings put out one decent flick—okay, fine, revolutionary to some, definitely revolutionary to many 😁—and then two pieces of garbage (or, if you're being generous, "solid attempts"), whereas you have directors out there who have delivered way more, and way better, movies than they ever could.

But look, this is a list of contemporary directors—people who might not have massive filmographies yet (like the Wachowski brothers) but possess actual potential, which is why Orson Welles doesn't belong here.

If you ask me, we're missing more Iranian talent, like the legendary Mahmalbaf, and I'd love to see names like Imamura, Bruno Dumont, or Lucas Belvaux on here too...

lonescout2 said:Well, yeah, I guess I was a little bit off the mark there 🙂

But Quentin Tarantino is very much alive 😁

You really can't just slot Tarantino into some arbitrary ranking—the guy is truly one of a kind. 😁

The only ones I'm struggling with lately are the Coen brothers; I don't know, their recent stuff just hasn't sat right with me, and I think that's actually started to color how I view their older movies too. 😢

but they have potential

Even Soderbergh had promise back when he made his first film, and then one day he just goes and makes Full Frontal 😁

Potential shouldn't really be a metric since we're talking about some hypothetical future. When you're making a list, you're looking at right now—the work already done. You look at their body of work, things like stylistic originality, how consistent the quality is, and the actual impact they’ve had on subsequent generations of filmmakers.

Forgot to mention in my first post that I have no idea where Ridley Scott, Jim Jarmusch, Tim Burton, or Oliver Stone fit into this.

Sophia Evans76 said:This is a list of contemporary directors—filmmakers who might not have a massive filmography yet (like the Coen brothers) but possess significant potential. That’s why Orson Welles doesn't belong here.

Perhaps. They certainly showed promise after their debut, but by their second or third outing, that spark seemed to vanish somewhere along the line (in my humble opinion, they got too caught up in special effects, though that's just my take).

Richard Hernandez13 said:The only ones I can't stand are the Coen brothers—they've really rubbed me the wrong way lately with their recent work, and now that resentment is bleeding into how I view their older films.

I found Martin Scorsese's placement at number two a bit grating, primarily because of that absolute disaster titled "Gang of New York."

lonescout2 said:I mean, those Coen brothers have put together one pretty decent movie...

Wrong, they've made two great ones—their first film, "Bound," is an absolute noir masterpiece. 😁

The list itself is perfectly fine, though it feels a bit too focused on English-speaking cinema, but I can live with that. There are a few (positive) surprises in there: Ang Lee, Aleksandr Sokurov, Walter Salles... but I honestly cannot wrap my head around why people like Alexander Payne (Election, About Schmidt... nothing out of the ordinary)
Michael Winterbottom, or Wes Anderson are even on here!?
And there isn't a single trace of Jim Jarmusch... pfff.
They could have easily squeezed in: Atom Egoyan, Shohei Imamura, Mike Leigh, Wim Wenders, or John Sayles...
...but I suppose that’s just how it always goes whenever anyone tries to compile these "best of" lists, isn't it?

Richard Hernandez13 said:You can't just toss Quentin Tarantino into some random list—the guy's a total one-off. 😁

...he'll probably end up getting some Lifetime Achievement award for his special contribution to the film industry and making us finally get why American cinema is so damn brilliant...

We’re talking about those modern directors who have already carved out their own signature styles and are still very much alive and kicking—which is why you won't see someone like Wim Wenders on this list; honestly, the man has already delivered his absolute masterpieces.

Richard Hernandez13 said:We’re talking about contemporary directors who already possess their own signature styles and are still alive and kicking—which is why, for instance, you won't find Wim Wenders on the list, because the man has already delivered his absolute best.

Well, at least he’s got more life in him than Terrence Malick, doesn't he?😁

Officer 663 said:Well, I guess he’s at least a bit more "lively" than Terrence Malick, isn't he?😁

Honestly, though, the way Malick times his appearances to coincide with the frequency of Halley's Comet feels like it's just part of his whole directorial persona.😁