Back

The Directors' Picks

The critic's picks are such a drab assortment! At least none of them are actually bad movies, but it's a real "eat your peas!" kind of list.

I expect working artist's picks to be livelier than critic's choices and on  the individual ballots they are much livelier! A few directors made outrageous message picks, like one guy in the Philippines that picked two 1970s XXX movies in the top ten.

I think more directors included KING KONG–a wise choice. Though much of KING KONG is inferior to the average early 1930s B movie the overall impact of the film is tremendous. KING KONG was as dramatic an expansion of the medium's potential as CITIZEN KANE. It's one of those rare "movies will never be the same" movies.

Unfortunately, when the directors' quirky ballots are averaged out the result is as safe and dull as the critics poll. The directors favor the visual and are a tad more up-to-date. The directors embraced RAGING BULL quickly, and chose the more idiosyncratic  DR. STRANGELOVE over 2001. Most strikingly, the directors like visual scope over claustrophobic human interaction, selecting the grandeur of SEVEN SAMURAI and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA over the critic's more constrained selections.

I am a little perplexed by the director's placing the Hitchcock entrant lower than the critics did. Hitchcock is hands down the most influential director of the sound era. Almost all working directors today copy Hitchcock's style and methods and I'd think they would be more keenly aware of that fact.

I complained that the critics' list still has BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN. The directors' list tops that by resurrecting tedious neo-realist downer THE BICYCLE THIEVES, perhaps smitten with the something-from-nothing thrill of naturalistic film-making. At this point neither one seem a realistic top ten entrant.

Page 4: What directors do each group revere?