World's Best 40 Directors by Rolling Stone

kozz said:We’re talking about modern directors who have already nailed their own signature style and are still going strong. Still here. Still kicking. It’s like why Wenders isn't even on the list. The guy already gave us everything he had to give. He's done.

Give me a break. Spielberg made Catch Me If You Can as a joke, and it’s still better than anything 90 percent of the people on your list have ever produced. Absolute garbage.

My take is short and sweet: this is nonsense!
Any list claiming to name the greatest directors that leaves out Woody Allen or Jim Jarmusch is just plain ridiculous...
And honestly, if Spielberg isn't on there either, then the whole thing is a total joke. Which is pretty much what this list is...

David Jackson2 said:I totally blanked on mentioning this in my first post, but I have no clue where Ridley Scott, Jim Jarmusch, Tim Burton, or Oliver Stone fit into this list.

Fair point, 😕 I’d probably throw Peter Weir and Wim Wenders into the mix too.

I wouldn't add anyone else to the list, but I would definitely take Moore out.

To list is, quite frankly, an absolute joke.
I honestly can't wrap my head around what kind of logic could possibly produce something this half-baked.
If the goal was merely to highlight the younger generation of filmmakers, then half these names are redundant while others are glaringly absent; however, if they were actually attempting to curate a broader selection as the title implies, then this whole thing is just utter garbage.

Good grief, the comments on this are something else! 🙄

Zachary King5 said:In my opinion, this whole list is just nonsense.
I honestly can't wrap my head around what kind of criteria you'd use to come up with something this ridiculous.

Look, this list was put together using the same method they use for pretty much any other major ranking out there:

a) You gather a solid group of people who actually work in the industry.
b) You ask each one of them to sit down and pick their own personal favorites from the best contemporary directors.
c) Then, you just aggregate all those individual lists into one big final tally.

It’s definitely not perfect, but it’s probably the most reliable way we have to do this right now.

Richard Hernandez13 said:Good grief, the state of these comments! 🙄

This whole ranking was compiled using the exact same formulaic approach used for just about every "important" list you see nowadays:

a) You round up a representative sample of industry insiders.
b) You ask every single one of them to draft their own list of top contemporary directors based on their own subjective criteria.
c) You aggregate all those individual lists into one definitive final tally.

It’s far from perfect, I'll grant you that, but it’s really the best methodology we have at our disposal right now.

The selection process itself can be heavily manipulated by who you choose to poll, but honestly, that's beside the point. My main gripe was simply that a few names felt missing—though if you actually look at it, it should be becoming increasingly obvious to anyone paying attention that Wenders has already hit his peak, while Scorsese and Lynch are probably just getting warmed up.

Look, that’s just my own personal take on things. And honestly, I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way.

Why don't you try putting together your own list? Post it right here on the forum, and then we can all see exactly how many people jump in to call it 'nonsense.'

I’m not necessarily looking to start an argument or post anything controversial, but if anyone could walk me through the logic of why Lynch would be considered the greatest director working today, I’d truly appreciate the insight.

Why not just go ahead and ask Peter Bradshaw, Xan Brooks, Molly Haskell, Derek Malcolm, Andrew Pulver, Ruby Rich, or Steve Rose?
I mean, if you look closely at the text right under his name, it actually explains quite clearly why he earned that top spot.

If I were the one making the call, though, I’d definitely put Errol Morris at number one.

By offering a direct window into our shared collective subconscious, that dreamlike landscape spun through films like Blue Velvet, Lost Highway, or Mulholland Drive proves to be simultaneously terrifying, maddening, eye-opening, and utterly chaotic.

If this is really the justification for why he takes the top spot, I have to wonder if these critics are just playing some sort of pretentious game to convince themselves they’ve found the pinnacle of cinema, or if they actually grasp what he's doing—assuming "grasping" is even a thing when it comes to his work. Personally, I feel like we actually get him; he’s out there dissecting the subconscious, blurring those jagged lines between dreams and reality, and forcing us to confront that terrifying moment where one melts into the other.

Personally, I find myself stuck between two rather grim conclusions: either the director is outright mocking the audience by treating us like idiots, or these films possess some deeply personal significance that is so intensely subjective it becomes impossible to decipher what was actually intended with such a script—at least regarding those last two mentioned above. Looking back at my own viewing history, I found Wild at Heart and Blue Velvet to be nothing more than mediocre, and Dune was one of those rare instances where I simply couldn't bring myself to sit through to the end (I even managed to struggle through the New York gangs, though God knows what I was expecting from them). It feels almost shameful to admit, but I truly find Mulholland Drive to be utterly senseless; the screenplay is an incomprehensible mess, and despite the technical proficiency on display, all those supposed "keys" to unlocking the film feel like nothing more than cheap mystification designed to hide a lack of substance. To make matters worse, even the atmosphere fails to resonate with me. Honestly, it’s embarrassing to even say it out loud.

Where on earth am I supposed to track down more Errol Morris films? Aside from *The Fog of War* and that one documentary about Hawking—which, let's be honest, is pretty easy enough to find online—I feel like I've hit a wall.

You don't really need to dive into deep, heavy-handed theories just to make sense of Mulholland; honestly, you just have to piece its little puzzle together.

I know I have a tape of Morris somewhere, but I haven't the slightest clue where I put it. 😁

I would personally suggest adding Kore-eda (he truly crafted one of the finest films of the nineties), Yimou (similarly talented), and Zvyagintsev.

It is wonderful that they remembered Terence Davis.

As for Mulholland Drive, the key is simply grasping the film's structure. It follows the same framework as White Hotel

I’d probably throw Altman onto the list—he’s an absolute legend and still has so much creative fire left in him 😁—but I’d personally swap out Sokurov for someone else. 😬

Where are Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson, and since Schumacher isn't even in the mix anymore, I suppose whatever you say, the guy just keeps churning out decent enough movies lately...

Well, it looks like they intentionally left out all the mainstream directors to favor those "auteur" types... if that's even how you say it 😁.

They definitely threw in a few clever curveballs just to get people talking—like including the Wachowski brothers, Davies, Morris, or my personal favorite move: swapping in Leigh Pawlikovski instead.

Of course, we really ought to keep in mind that this whole thread was actually started back in 2003. 😬
Some people here have clearly already overstayed their welcome (looking at you, Coen brothers).

The whole concept behind lists like this is just nonsense.

First off, calling someone the "best" artist is completely meaningless. Art isn't some sport where you can just check a scoreboard.

And besides, these "industry insiders" didn't even score the directors directly. Instead, they assigned points based on these vague, god-like attributes—stuff like originality, intellect, substance🙂, or beauty...

It’s just ridiculous to try and tally those things up linearly.

For instance, someone could rack up a massive amount of points for visual beauty while scoring zero on intellect, landing them at the exact same total as some brilliant director who has zero aesthetic appeal. Not that I'm trying to discriminate or anything.

Furthermore, why wasn't wit included as one of the metrics? If it were, Woody Allen might actually stand a chance. ...not to mention a dozen other scales they ignored.

It feels bizarre seeing Lynch sitting at number one. I suppose it might be "fair" if you look at how they manipulated the math and used twisted logic to get there.
But Lynch is an underground guy—seeing him perched on top of Olympus feels wrong. What kind of world is this? And having Marty right next to him on the right... 😲 it makes me want to mix Speed with my sleeping pills just so I can die from the sheer short-circuiting of my brain watching these absurd pairings. 😁

By the way, Lynch is my favorite director too 😳. But that doesn't really matter for this argument.

To put what that Frenchman said into my own words:

The absolute best way to push back against someone else's list is simply to go out and craft your very own one.

Man, how many times do I have to say it? Any list that actually starts a fight is a good list... that's literally why they exist.

Honestly, who cares? I feel like I have to say this constantly—any list that actually manages to spark a heated debate is a successful list. That’s literally the whole point of making them in the first place...

So if you don't want us talking about it, just stop giving us something to talk about.😉.