Name one director better than Stanley Kubrick

I can do more than one
>Fellini
>tarkovsky
>Bergman
>Truffaut
>de sica
>ozu
>Kurosawa
>herzog
>parajanov
>tarr

Ben Affleck

Truffaut influenced Kurbrick.

Paul Thomas Anderson is my favorite and Stanley is probably #2

Where did this whole "KUBRICK IS THE BEST EVER" bullshit come from?

I think it was reddit but I'm not sure.

to make better movies

>ITT redditors who token like Kubrick

I started it with my german type writer

Kubrick was influenced by lots of people, doesn't mean Truffaut is "better". Of course I can only speculate, but if we're going by sphere of influence, I think Kubrick would win in a landslide.

>hurr durr reddit
Do not ever fucking reply again unless you are contributing to the thread.

t. reddit
upboat

What is that pic? It's pretty cool

Kurbicks films are esoteric, and usually have multiple meanings, people praise Kurbick for the wrong reasons, such as the false notion that his movies are linear.

Found it on a website years ago, I think it's a mutated plant of some sort

have any of you seen this documentary? I'm watching right now

it's alright
a lot of it is just pot head tier speculation

especially this one guy who keeps mumbling

"it's like, ya know, the guy, right, it's like, the thing is.."

end me

You might fool people who have never seen those movies, but the only director superior to Kubrick on that list is Kurosawa.

>75131036
How is Kurosawa better than Kubrick?

serious question

It's well made, and I think it's an interesting glimpse into Kubricks attention to detail; however, I think it became very tedious and monotonous after a while, and I quit after about 40 min.

And while I give zero credence to any of the conspiracy theories, it's interesting to hear people speak so passionately and with such conviction about a film.

46 minutes in right now, and I have to agree with the monotonousness aspect of it, it has made some fascinating points, but it's starting to seem like a 9/11 [[proof]] conspiracy video.

Honestly, there is no better director

Some hipster cunts want to disagree because it makes them feel more cultured if they list older directors as their favorites

But the fact is no other director was as intelligent and obsessed with film as Kubrick

...

Budeau, Harrisberg, John Avery, Obbles, and Tom Frit come to mind

/thread

pic related

Martin Scorsese
Brian De Palma
Francis Ford Coppola
Akira Kurasowa

Steven Wozniack.

This

There are always anons who bring up Rivette or Ozu or various other auteurs, but these directors are usually judged by fairly different criteria, and they're CLEARLY in a different class.

Kubrick makes Rivette's films (and the film's of most other directors of his ilk) look perfunctory and amateurish.

I can't think of another director that has created as many masterpieces as Kubrick -

Most of the other directors listed in this thread haven't even come close to making ONE movie that's akin attaining Kubrick level mastery of film.

Sergio Leone

it was made so poorly, I remember being puzzled as to why one of the theorists wouldnt have redone the dialogue where his kid is screaming in the background for 5 minutes.

adam sandler when he first started making movies

Kurosawa is close. I can list his 5 best films and each one is better than some director's masterpiece. Bangers all

no other director has left a legacy so mysterious and amazing so yeah, IDK where these kurosawa Cred Forums ppl are cummin from but ole boy Kubrick's god tier

why even try to make film when Kubrick basically left nothing else to accomplish

JUST

Where are the "Kubrick wasn't an auteur and was superficially stylish" anons? It's like having a TCAP thread without the "entrapment" anons.

Fight me

Kubrick is a hack, if you think he's the best director of all time you're probably infantile in your knowledge of cinema then. B-b-but he makes deep movies, no he doesn't, his flicks are all superficial garbage only enjoyed by teenage Reddit fags who don't know shit about film

Aaahhh, there it is! Go on, user, tell us about a bunch of completely unrelated auteurs and where they're better.

who would you consider to be a top-tier director?

it's the guy that chuckles smugly after every sentence
"it's like, you know, that war footage wasn't them flying missions over Japan, they're over like, New Mexico or something, huhuh, like, you know? huhuh?"

one could make an argument for david lean or Coppola I suppose. Tough to say because Kubrick's style and his mastery of that style is incomparable to any other directors work imo.

I'm pretty sure that guy was seth rogans botched clone

huhahuhuhhuuh

Tarkovsky
What do I win?

reddit gold

You win a 10 hour clip of a running stream

Nothing better than the guy who said you can only spell MOON with the letters in "ROOM No." Turns out you can also spell MORON.

I don't want that crap. I change by answer to Kevin Smith

Congratulations, you just won pic-related in XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXL

>Martin Scorsese
>Brian De Palma
>Francis Ford Coppola

muh new hollywood. You might as well list Steven Spielberg as well if being able to make above average hollywood films makes someone greater than Kubrick.

Tarkovsky.
Bergman.
Aronofsky.

Kubrick is entry level trash

Okay faggot

fucking all my keks to you sir

t. Butthurt Reddit fag

>Ben Affleck
>Danny Boyle
>Steve McQueen

There is more to filmmaking than pretending there is more to your film than there actually is.

Also he was a complete dick for what mediocre performances he scraped out of his actors.

Mel Brooks

t. nuanced patrician thinker

What exactly do you mean by "entry kevel", and why is this a bad thing?

Do you mean that because he's a universally respected director, who's films are beloved by millions and have generated more discussion than any other director's oeuvre, he's therefore not as good as some faggot who makes abstract art films?

Refn is fucking a w f u l

do you have an argument or not faggot?

>dude Kubrick sucks
>i cant tell you why tho

Man, Reviewbrah really needs to get better fitting suits.

William Wyler (Wilhelm Weiller)

Ben Hur 1959

In 2016 dollars it earned 1.3 billion in it's initial release

11 Academy Awards, would be 40 years before another film matched, no film has ever surpassed it

Only director to win three Academy Awards, same three films won best picture

Jezebel, Wuthering Heights, The Westerner, Ms Miniver, The Memphis Belle, The Best Years of our Lives, Roman Holiday, The Desperate Hours, Friendly Persuasion, The Big Country, Ben Hur, The Children's Hour, The Collector, Funny Girl

this is the only real answer

You can't compare artists from completely different eras, art doesn't work like that.

Also this thread is very antithesis of film. Art is subjective. Why can't we all just appreciate the artists for what they were and not compare them to artists that they weren't.

>implying art doesn't have objective value

Do you attend post-modern Marxist art museums?

That's the same fuck who says "see kubrick's face in the clouds? I should circle it for you!"

And he doesn't circle shit.

That ocu e tary is a joke

>art
>objective

Fuck off

I guess a jack pollock painting and a da vinci painting are equally as good, or no, rather it is subjective to which you think is the best.

ok.

Aronofsky only made one exceptionally good film and that was Pi. I'll give him the fountain too.

Bergman is garbage.

>comparing 2 completely different things whose only similarity is the medium

u r dumb

Daron Aronofsky

Pi is trash. Noah is his Magnum Opus.

no u

>academy awards matter
>sales matter
Kek

(You)

It isn't well made, some people literally phone in from Skype and because of that there is a lot of pauses when they're trying to construct a coherent sentence

yeah they even left in the part when seth rogan jr was trying to talk and his kid was yelling in the backround

disgraceful

Tard and Parajackoff contributed little to cinema as a whole, unlike the rest of that list.

Big Bergman is better than Kurosawa.

Zach Snyder

Name an OP who doesn't confuse direction and cinematography
spoilers: you aren't

only correct answer here

pls stahp this thread is reddit

There is no objective scale for how good a director is, and if there was, it wouldn't be Kubrick.

It's been a while since I've seen it, so maybe my opinion is a bit distorted. I just remember the ominous vibe being fairly immersive.

>there's no way to say who the best director in history is
>but it's definitely not kubrick

ok user

yeah i know whatever

Judd Apatow.

Ford, Hawks, Lean etc.

HARD ON

...

Noe

Tarkovsky is overrated but he's still one of the greatest.

James Francis Cameron

...

I'm pretty sure that pic of Brendan Fraser is photoshoped.

There will never be anyone as patrician as him. He moved to England to get away from Hollywood's bullshit/interference, and in turn he got more creative control over his projects. To put this into perspective, he went through the trouble of turning England into Vietnam for Full Metal Jacket.

Wait.. That was all filmed in England? Where's the proof of this?

literally Leone

Michael Bay > Stanley Shitbrick

This movie is fucking retarded and if you think it's good you're a moron who doesn't get kubrick at all. It's full of retarded burn outs who say shit like "there in the clouds you can see this word for 2 seconds and it represents blah blah blah"

Kubrick was obsessed with the deeper functioning of conciousness and in particular dreams. He was fascinated with the concept that dreams might be the form in which humans crystallize knowledge into their brains. Keep in mind language is an invention of human culture our deeper levels of our brain are designed to process information in a totally non literate format. He wasn't making a fucking catcher in the rye. His films are meant to be absorbed in a way that expresses a complex idea on a subconcious non literary level.

He filmed all his films in England after Spartacus i think.

...

Why is that so hard to believe? England is inherently foggy & depressing, so all they had to do was find an abandoned industrial plant and import some palm trees, and voila, war-torn Vietnam.

Kubrick isn't even in the top 20 of all time

Off the top of my head?

Ford
Cassavetes
Hawks
Malick
Hitchcock
Griffith
Ming-liang
Murnau
Kiarostami
Bergman
Polanski
Bresson
Inarritu
Fellini
De Sica
Rossellini
Erice
Buñuel
Truffaut
Ozu
(Satyajit) Ray
Oshima
Naruse
Kobayashi
Mizoguchi
Kalatozov
Eisenstein
Yang

10/10 post

>Bergman
You only needed the one.

yeah that cloud thing was hilarious, I almost wondered if it was meant as some kind of mockumentary for how stupid these people are because there was nothing that resembled what that guy said there was in the clouds the guy kept insisting it was there when even watched frame by frame repeatedly there was absolutely nothing

I know but I really wanted to send a message to op to show him that he is missing out on some incredible work by setting the bar so low.

Well you've done me a favor by giving me some new directors to check into. When shitposting threads turn productive.

shitbrick absolutely btfo and on suicide watch

González
Garcia
Russell
Miller
Katzarov
Bernard
Jackson
Thompson
Fournier
Lefèvre
Moller
Rodriguez
Rossi
Bell
Brown
Müller
Christensen
Moretti
Sofiyanski
Edwards

not filming on location is very very pleb t.b.h.

That depends desu fampai. Look at that netflix show marco polo, they were all about filming on location and that show is a pile of shit with horrible scenery excluding one or two cheap scenes filmed with instagram filters on max and they spent most of their massive 100 mil budget to do it.

Kubrick didn't understand human emotion

Watch Paths of Glory and try and argue that.

I've watched all his movies. Whatever emotion that movie has is owed completely to Kirk Douglas (he was a very passionate actor), but it all gets lots by Kubrick's sanitizing visage. It comes off as a caricature of actual suffering.

Full disclosure: I actually like Kubrick.

1. I don't watch television series. So I'll pass on that.
2. I didn't say filming on location makes something inherently good. But filming off location ignores films referential relation with the material world. Even before I knew Full Metal Jacket was filmed a mile way from Kubrick's home, there was a single second in which I believed the actors were in Vietnam.

The final scene of the German girl forced to sing for the French soldiers is pure emotive kino. I'm sorry that you're autistic.

Underrated kek

That isn't really important to what kubrick was trying to do though. His movies are all meant to have a surreal feeling to them, eyes wide shut's scenery was executed perfectly for that film and I'm pretty sure it was done in england as well.

Milos Foreman

Bergman's overrated as fuck.

ahem

Lel what have you seen from him?

no

Zack Snyder

It really isn't.

He only directed the second highest grossing franchise of ALL TIME

Lucas > Jewbrick

...

...

>he went through the trouble of turning England into Vietnam
>trouble
lel

...

What did he mean by this?

>1 minute 3 seconds
>1 minute 1 second
>1 minute 2 seconds
>1 minute 2 seconds

beyond pathetic

What do you mean what did he mean?
Pretty straight foreward

Brick, are you just naming directors?

...

you need to refresh your page m8, you can't even post two replies within a minute of eachother
For all those to be posted would be at least 4 min

Villeneuve
Fincher
PTA
Nolan

Wait for it.... wait for it....

>Kubrick sculpts great source material into his own vision
The epitome of an auteur and director

>Lucas has all the ideas that are sculpted by others into normie greatness
As far as reddit-level media fags are concerned Lucas is a horrible director.

I overall prefer the prequels because it's a fucking grandiose children's story.

I am guessing the almost part is, you know, excluding.....like... the bad parts.

What "bad parts"?

The failure to complete his goals

>almost everything
The only thing he was wrong about was he thought he could take on Russia in the winter

You know, the no no parts that he did.

>Stanley "assburguers" Kubrick
>good

>epitome of an auteur
I guess this comes down to semantics, but I'm pretty sure when most people think of an auteur, they think of a writer/director who creates films as a more direct from of personal expression.

Kubrick is the greatest, but I personally wouldn't identify him as an auteur. People he worked with often described him as a technician, which I think was perfectly balanced with an immaculate artistic sensibility. But whatever.

B R A V O

>you can't really say if it's better to be raped or to listen to Beethoven bro, they are just too different

Yes, naming good directors.

You can use whatever weird definition of auteur that you want. The rest of us are going to use the normal one.

James Cameron

>Cred Forums pass user thinking his opinions aren't retarded

You already proved you're retarded fampai

James Cameron

Tiresome genre filmmaker.

>the rest of us are going to use the normal one
You mean this absoputely objective description?...

Auteur: A filmmaker whose personal influence and artistic control over a movie are so great that the filmmaker is regarded as the author of the movie

Kinda leaves it open to interpretation, huh?

An auteur is someone where they have a clear style (attained through technical mastery of the elements of film making) in the service of some high minded telos, that permeates their ourvre so one can watch a movie and understand who made it without being told.

Hmm, nice try, but it's still not objective, user.

>"but I'm pretty sure when most people think of an auteur, they think of a writer/director who creates films as a more direct from of personal expression."
Totally weird definition

what does him being an autist have to do with anything

...

It doesnt. It's just something anons like to bicker over.

>but it's still not objective, user.
I never said anything like that.

>they think of a writer/director
No they don't. Autuers are filmmakers. No one calls writers auteurs.

Your definition amounts to anyone who really believes in their movie is an autuer. There is no mention at all of technical skill and the whole 'creates films as a more direct from of personal expression' can only based on the beliefs of the director so that if they try to express themselves personally through their film then they have. My definition at least said in the service of some high minded telos.

>Ming-Liang

Mah Nigga.

>I never said anything like that
No, you implied it when you said my definition was weird, as if an auteur is something that can be objectively identified by means of any other definition.

>no one thinks of writers as auteurs
I was referring to directors who also write their films, dumbass.

>high minded telos
... ok

>No, you implied it
No, you inferred it somehow. I never said anything about objective definitions. There is nothing in what I said which would force you to conclude that.

>... ok
Phrase it however you want but every work of art has a teleology and we judge works of art on their teleology and the means used to fulfill. it. To say high-minded telos simply means a teleology of aesthetic worth. It's hardly controversial to say an auteur is someone whose films are skillfully constructed means to realise what it is they are set out to do, and that what they are set out to do are worthy of doing. It is not necessary to define what these acceptable teleology would be as this is only a definition. No one expects a definition of God to also prove His existence.

>no, you inferred it
Yes, from your implication that my definition was somehow weird, even though it's absolutely compatible with your own. Keep trying.

>hardly controversial to say an auteur is someone whose films are skillfully constructed means to realise what it is they are set out to do
You could say that about most filmmakers. It's your subjective value judgement which separates one from the other.

>no one expects a definition of God to prove his existence
Most critical thinkers do, in fact. How could you prove something that can't even be defined in the first place?

...

Kubrick is very good director but there are better directors. He made various films for me the best ones are Eyes Wide Shut, 2001 and Barry Lyndon. His films are neither that visually striking nor narratively complex to be considered better than films from Fellini, Bergman, Tarr etc.

>Yes, from your implication that my definition was somehow weird
Saying you are using a non-standard definition does not necessitate any sort of belief in an objective grounding of definitions. I am only talking in terms of societal recognition. If you believe it logically has to show a belief in objective grounding of definitions you will have to show how.

>compatible with your own
It could be compatible though it does not have to be, but that does not make them equally useful definitions. You definition lacks any mention of skill and the only criteria is direct self expression with no mention of their even being a demarcation between good or bad self expression.

>Most critical thinkers do, in fact. How could you prove something that can't even be defined in the first place?
No they don't nor have they ever done that. Name me a single academic figure that has ever argued for the definition of God to also contain its proof of its own existence.

youtube.com/watch?v=mnTU_hJoByA

>I am only talking in terms of societal recognition
If you read my first post again, you'll find I was doing exactly the same. And there isn't exactly a "standard" definition anyway.

>your definition lacks any mention of skill
I chose to remain more broad, so as to avoid the labyrinth of perspectives when you introduce things like skill and "telos" and "good".

>Name me a single academic figure who has ever argued for the definition of God to also contain it's proof of its own existence
Your initial phrasing was a bit different, and I took it to mean that you thought you can prove the existence of God without a definition. Even still, I'd have a bone to pick with it, but I'm not about to have another vapid discussion about God.

>when you introduce things like skill and "telos" and "good".
An auteur is a good director who directs good movies. It is a word laden with value judgments. To try to define it without reference to that is to make a weak definition. I also don't think you understand the term teleology because you clearly have a telos as part of your own definition. My criticism of your teleology is that because it is only based on the inner feelings of a director. Imagine there is two identical films in everyday. One is made by someone who did it with 'direct self expression' and the other did not. One of this directors is an auteur and the other is not.

Without any value judgments being part of the definition all you have is that an auteur is a director who makes movies for some reason and they are different from other directors somehow. The only difference between that and your definition was your addition of the self expression part which I criticised in the previous post. So your definition then turns into an auteur is a some guy who makes movies for some reason but that he feels they express himself. It is far better to say that an auteur is a good director who makes good movies for a good purpose which was my definition.

I would say
kershner
Scorcesse
Are both autistic about kino as Kubrick is

Stanley Kubrick himself

>an auteur is a director who directs good movies
No. It's not. I'd consider Uwe Boll an auteur, and I think his films are shit (and I'm not alone). Godard is certainly an auteur, and I think his films are overly stylish trash (again, I'm not alone)

>Without any value judgments being part of the definition all you have is that an auteur is a director who makes movies for some reason and they are different from other directors somehow
If you're writing and directing a film that's based on personal experience, this would be a more direct from of personal expression than directing the next big budget comic book film written by other people. This isn't a value judgement, it's a fact.

>it is far better to say that an auteur is a good director who makes good movies for a good purpose which was my definition
>better, good, good, good
Up until this, I actually thought you were reasonably intelligent.

Kubrick is "entry level cinema" like Bach is "entry level classical music"

Just because everyone knows them doesn't mean they aren't the best

Zach "kino" Snyder

Polanski.
Nothing can touch his apartment trilogy. Also, he raped a 12 year old girl so he's /ourguy/

Also, I meant to add to my second point that relative levels of personal expression are at the center of what defines an auteur.

John Cassavetes

/thread

fuck off

nxtlvl

This.

This.

Thats a prop from The thing i believe.

i literally cant

>Iñárritu

Stopped reading there. That exposed you as the bandwagoner tryhard kid who just copy pasted a "25 best directors ever" list from cracked.com