21st Century v 20th Century Films

[Joks Trois]

No, no, I'm sure the movie is smart, we just have to wait for the next episode to prove it, or maybe the one after that, or the one three years from now, but eventually it'll add up to something if we wait long enough or just forget what it is we were waiting for in the first place. Deferment of assessment as its own pleasure.

That's exactly how TV works/worked.

Yes. This is why I really think the people who praise the superiority of TV to film and compare it to good literature are pretty much morons/philistines etc. Take your pick. A great novel is a singular contained experience. It is not written on the fly to keep up with demand/popularity etc. Film also benefits from the compression effect, insofar as by condensing its running time it enables a symbolic meaning to emerge that may or may not have been intended. This is what adds meaning to the experience. Most TV is just extended for the sake of it. It's a creative model that is largely motivated by the principle of 'just because'. Just because we can, because there is a large enough audience etc.

Marvel films follow the same model. They are basically just sitcoms where characters bicker and banter their way out of situations that are completely meaningless so they can move on to the next scenario ad nauseum/ad infinitum. Aesthetically most of those films are useless as well. Just big bland images with no compositional depth.

Anyway, the most concerning thing for me is not what's happening to mainstream films, because they are invariably products, time wasters, gap fills etc. What bothers me is that there appears to be precious few young up and coming directors who are seriously committed to the craft and who have adequate financial support behind them. This is not a generational blame game. The incentives are just no longer there, and the audience for these 'serious minded' films is not big enough to sustain proper theatrical releases anymore.

Optimists believe streaming will ensure that these films are made and delivered directly to their audience, but I have my doubts about the current and future size of that audience.

[wba]

No, no, I'm sure the movie is smart, we just have to wait for the next episode to prove it, or maybe the one after that, or the one three years from now, but eventually it'll add up to something if we wait long enough or just forget what it is we were waiting for in the first place. Deferment of assessment as its own pleasure.

That's exactly how TV works/worked.

Yes. This is why I really think the people who praise the superiority of TV to film and compare it to good literature are pretty much morons/philistines etc. Take your pick.

Absolutely. But people are morons/philistines, etc. I think most people never "understood" movies and what happens while watching them. They just want "a good story" or "to be entertained", or whatever. That's the actual thing which I find sad. It's a wonder films survived as long as they did, and that they actually evolved into such a phenomenal art form during the 20th century.

[RenaultR]

I try my best to avoid any sort of defeatism or "kids these days..." arguments, even if just about everything said in that article from Rogerebert.com is true if the state of the current cultural economy is taken at face value. I also think 'serious' artists whether in film, literature, or any other artistic field are partially to blame. Artists need to consciously think about what they can do to make an impact given the economic and cultural realities of their given moment. They need to get the lay of the land so to speak and figure out how to reach those Millennials glued to their ipads many of whom inevitably tire after a while of the "typical Hollywood fare" and want something "different". Granted such strategies may sound a bit mercenary on the part of artists, but underestimating the intelligence and overestimating the philistinism of "kids these days" is not the solution in my opinion. Genuinely great artists typically respond to society rather than the other way around.

With that said, "film as art" has always been a niche interest and always will be. The average college graduate never has and never will get by on a steady diet of Ozu, Bresson, Mizoguchi, etc. Not everyone in this world has the same interests or inclinations, and that's fine.

[Joks Trois]

^^No they don't just passively 'respond'. They also recreate/reconstruct. Was Jancso or Tarkovsky just 'responding' to their time? Clearly not.

Any 'realist' clown can respond.

[RenaultR]

Sure, but my point is simply that great art doesn't occur in a vacuum.

[Joks Trois]

^^You said 'genuinely great artists typically respond to society'. I think it's more accurate to say that genuinely great artists can't be separated from their material/political/social/cultural conditions, but that raises a completely different kind of question. Great artists are also craftsmen/women. They aren't just 'responding' to the society around them, they are also a product of it. They become artists through a process of cultivation. Whether they are 'responding' or not is beside the point. Was Vermeer just 'responding' to the society he was living in? What about Turner?

If the soil is relatively poor, great artists won't emerge no matter how intensely 'engaged' they are with the present moment.

[RenaultR]

Sure, but the artists themselves are partially responsible for the soil, so it's a chicken and egg problem to some extent. But I'd also add that the seemingly fallow nature of the current social/cultural conditions could conceivably be the subject of art in some instances.

[Joks Trois]

^^You don't think any contemporary film makers have touched on that?

[brian d]

[JADEreigns]

Here's my take:

The most important question when we talk about 21st century films is: Do you even know what the 21st century has offered?

Consider: There has been mention of the "Golden Era" of cinema, and the "New Wave/Auteur Era" as two major points of reference. Those are major points of reference for several very good reasons:

1. The films played in a lot of cinemas, and also featured prominently in major festivals (for the arthouse films).
2. The only way to watch films was in theaters (for much of both periods), so people mostly watched only what was current
3. The cinema machine wasn't as well-oiled as it is currently, resulting in an absurd number of choices and little prospect of financial success

The effects of these are many:

1. You can't look either in regular cinemas or in major festivals for groundbreaking films. Consider: There has not been a single Asian film that could be considered even marginally avant-garde, experimental, or groundbreaking in over a decade in the Cannes comp. This is not to say that I don't love a Koreeda film, but it is to say that the places to find art that we might consider worthy of comparison to the "New Wave/Auteur Era" require more and more effort. I try to put in this effort - and 3 years after some films are shown in festivals I find myself searching the internet for the films I read amazing reviews of and they still have no release of any sort. You can't even steal them. What?
2. Cinephiles these days can watch films from any time in history. And do. The number of people that truly keep up with the most cutting edge films are fewer and fewer, the conversations between these people are fewer and fewer, and the number of films that both love and share is fewer and fewer - and, consequently, it's only sensible that fewer and fewer people find the cutting edge landscape of today comparable.
3. If there were amazing films made today (and there are), they will almost certainly lose money or require public funding. Even someone as well known as Wes Anderson has had immense trouble making money on his films. Alex Ross Perry has already publicly resigned himself to the idea that he may never be able to direct a film he has written ever again. Greek weird wave filmmakers probably didn't love the idea of getting public funding during EU enforced austerity. And what if they did secure funding? Well, they probably wouldn't get put into comp at a major festival. And if they somehow garnered word of mouth without that, like Long Days Journey Into Night, they would be on one screen at one arthouse in a city with 500 other screens out with merely a local online review as the sole advertising.

There are more problems than just those listed above. However - I think that the 21st century is probably the most exciting period in the history of film. Whether it's the availability of cheap digital filmmaking, the organization of the arthouse cinema production machine, the possibility of public grants in some places for some filmmakers or even occasionally a carefree or swindled rich backer (see: Dau) or some other random assemblage of circumstances has provided for an IMMENSE number of non-commercial films, likely more in a given year now than ever before.

Granted, when I say that the 21st century is probably the most exciting period in the history of film, I also acknowledge that it must be the most frustrating, because there is too much access to too many films of too many types and too few eyeballs are being trained on the current groundbreaking, arthouse, and avant-garde cinema, so all filmmakers are facing the almost absolute certainty of economic failure and a future no less financially bleak - and yet the artists persist. As they always have.

Let's not forget the amazing films of Contemporary Contemplative Cinema, let's not forget the Berlin School, let's not forget the rise of the realist school of the Romanian New Wave especially those that never found festival focus but made amazing work, let's not forget the rise of so many fantastic female filmmakers across the filmmaking spectrum, let's not forget the things we haven't even bothered to spend the time looking for, and so much more...

Lastly, let's not forget that some of us would trade all of the French New Wave filmmakers for nothing more than the current top French female directors, to say nothing of the innumerable artists within France and elsewhere that are around making work just as touching and lovely and thoughtful and mind-bending today as those works were then. Cinema is alive and well. And as for the filmmakers that succeeded the French New Wave, well - Garrel is still here, and he doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon.

I can offer no excuses for Italy, though. I don't know what happened there. I love me some Frammartino, but he's just not interested in running up the score.

[JADEreigns]

A great novel is a singular contained experience. It is not written on the fly to keep up with demand/popularity etc.

Funny story: This is exactly how some "great novels" were written. Dickens published his novels chapter by chapter, and each chapter was designed just like TV Episodes today with cliffhangers and such.

History repeats!

[...]

Thanks for the post, nice to have new people joining in.

From what I've gathered, Italy went through some pretty dramatic funding changes back in the nineties I think, though I could be a bit off on the time period, but in any case, the amount of funding available dropped significantly and really did a number on the industry. I tried to find out more about it way back when I first heard of the situation, but wasn't able to dig much up, so don't take that info as proof of anything, more just something I heard that may or may not be true, though it would explain something of the drop off.

I personally agree with the bulk of what you suggest. If there were nothing else to say for 21st century filmmaking, just the sheer amount of people now able to make movies who'd been lock out of production for most of the history of film is alone damn good reason to celebrate the movies of the new millennium. That there has never been more diversity in the kinds of films made too is an added bonus. Unfortunately commercial cinema always drowns out "arthouse" fare and the US has only increased its dominance in the commercial sphere up with their never ending blockbuster mentality, but there are at least some hints that could be changing a little, so there might be some hope that the way things are now isn't the way things will be for that much longer.

Old movies are just getting older and that means many of the "classics" are going to seem ever more out of touch with "today's" audiences as the things they show or stories they tell don't fit the world of the audience either just materially in what is recognized or are too morally fraught for many to accept. There is some sense of loss that might be felt, perhaps, in certain kinds of storytelling techniques that gave some of the older films a stronger sense of purpose or identity than appears in many of the commercial films now that are aimed at franchise status and/or just aren't able to provide the kind of more concise emotional hook older films did for being made in an era so caught up in narrative exhaustion and reflexivity. The quest to be "clever" at the expense of all else seems to often leave a shallower impression of the current major commercial films, even when they do try to smuggle in some other ideas in the package. That feeling will change as time goes on and the next thing gives this era a more settled sense of familiarity I suspect and we'll better be able to see what it is we have, for good and bad, with that added distance.

[pabs]

Great to have you, JADEreigns !

I'm loving your input here.

[Joks Trois]

A great novel is a singular contained experience. It is not written on the fly to keep up with demand/popularity etc.

Funny story: This is exactly how some "great novels" were written. Dickens published his novels chapter by chapter, and each chapter was designed just like TV Episodes today with cliffhangers and such.

History repeats!

Some yes, but not most. Most American TV, on the other hand, follows that model.

I also disagree what you said about arthouse cinema. It is pretty much dead and exhausting on paint fumes. Lots of films are made, but they are forgettable. It's just a sea of imitation and blandness.

The pluralism of the 60s is long gone.

[wba]

Here's my take:

in my opinion what you're saying is true but doesn't negate the problem. There are many many fantastic filmmakers working today and therte are many great films being made and filmmaking is far from dead. BUT, and this is a huuuuuge but: I think when comparing decades or centuries and eras (if one can put it that way) it's about the average film, the average quality of directing and filmmaking.

In my opinion (and you and many other might disagree), but if I pick a random film from the 60s from any possible country, if I pick a cheaply made exploitation film, or a random commercial release or whatever, the artistry the craftsmanship the energy of a film from the 1920s for example is so so so much greater than any avergae film being made today. And I think that's true of any decade up until the 90s (where as I can observe it this knowledge of cinemai started to deteriorate slowly but surely, or just wasn't passed on any more). Direcors and other film artists on average these days are in my opinion so far away from the heights of your average visual storyteller or experimental filmmaker or whatnot than say those of the 1970s, that it boggles my mind. And it boggles my mind even more when the possibilities are in some way seemingly better than they were ever before, and more people can make films (and do make films) than ever did.

My idea is that filmmaking as an "important" form of a rt and communication, as an influential practice is more or less gone. Like theatre, or opera or the novel, it has had it's time and it has passed. And the 20th century was obviously that high-point of cinema, which will never return again. All the more ironic that people like Ford or Curtiz during the studio-era in Hollywood though they were just making entertaining films that weren't that special cause other artists would follow in the future and make their films look like shit. Maybe many Renaissance painters thought the same at their time? Maybe Dostoevsky and Dickens and Melville and such also thought that much more brilliant minds would follow in the centuries to come? But as far as we know it now, this didn't really happen.

I'm sure exceptional filmmakers (and dozens of them) will keep working throughout this century (and probably those to come), I just don't think we won't have as many of them as before and the general level of craft of artistry in films has sunk to an incredibly low level (almost to that of TV). Other audiovisual artforms are probably more important and more relevant to a younger generation now, like the internet, video games, youtube videos, etc. etc. etc.

[wba]

A great novel is a singular contained experience. It is not written on the fly to keep up with demand/popularity etc.

Funny story: This is exactly how some "great novels" were written. Dickens published his novels chapter by chapter, and each chapter was designed just like TV Episodes today with cliffhangers and such.

History repeats!

Some yes, but not most. Most American TV, on the other hand, follows that model.

I also disagree what you said about arthouse cinema. It is pretty much dead and exhausting on paint fumes. Lots of films are made, but they are forgettable. It's just a sea of imitation and blandness.

The pluralism of the 60s is long gone.

totally agree as well. "Arthouse cinema" as a concept has been pretty much dead for the past two decades, meaning it has been commercialised and exploited beyond recognition.
Filmmaking in general seems to be stuck in a sea of blandness and imitation, like an LP or a CD that's stuck and won't go on.
And the problem isn't exactly imitation itself, which has always been an important aspect of any artform, but that it seems more and more the imitators are imitating other imitators who have been imitiating, and few people have anything left to say about cinema and art and their connection and importance for our lives. It's mostly become a bland and stale exercise that has the feel and look of a commercial or a TV episode.

[JADEreigns]

A great novel is a singular contained experience. It is not written on the fly to keep up with demand/popularity etc.

Funny story: This is exactly how some "great novels" were written. Dickens published his novels chapter by chapter, and each chapter was designed just like TV Episodes today with cliffhangers and such.

History repeats!

Some yes, but not most. Most American TV, on the other hand, follows that model.

I also disagree what you said about arthouse cinema. It is pretty much dead and exhausting on paint fumes. Lots of films are made, but they are forgettable. It's just a sea of imitation and blandness.

The pluralism of the 60s is long gone.

Some, but not most. Unless you're talking about the 100 years that preceded our latest 100 years, in which case you would say "Most, not just some."

Dickens? Yep.
Tolstoy? Yep.
Dostoevsky? Yep.
Harriet Beecher Stowe, Mark Twain, and Henry James? Yep.

That's a lot of big names.

I think if you watched 100 or 200 arthouse films every year in 1960 and 1961 and 1962 and 1963 and 1964... you might find it a sea of imitation and blandness, too. Comparing the highlights, though, I find the current era as rich as ever, though not without caveats that I already provided.

totally agree as well. "Arthouse cinema" as a concept has been pretty much dead for the past two decades, meaning it has been commercialised and exploited beyond recognition.
Filmmaking in general seems to be stuck in a sea of blandness and imitation, like an LP or a CD that's stuck and won't go on.
And the problem isn't exactly imitation itself, which has always been an important aspect of any artform, but that it seems more and more the imitators are imitating other imitators who have been imitiating, and few people have anything left to say about cinema and art and their connection and importance for our lives. It's mostly become a bland and stale exercise that has the feel and look of a commercial or a TV episode.

I agree that film festivals and distributors have done a better job of commercializing films to show more bland or tame work. There are more imitators - because there are more films being made - and it seems like there are more imitators per film, but that might just be because the imitators are crowding out the groundbreaking work. Actually, that is part of the reason, without question.

That doesn't mean groundbreaking or fascinating films are not out there, or in the sidebars. Garrel would never have found his early films in festivals. Not polished enough, amateurish, despite their positives. It's the way of the industry - but don't throw the filmmakers out with the industry. It's not their fault!

[JADEreigns]

in my opinion what you're saying is true but doesn't negate the problem. There are many many fantastic filmmakers working today and therte are many great films being made and filmmaking is far from dead. BUT, and this is a huuuuuge but: I think when comparing decades or centuries and eras (if one can put it that way) it's about the average film, the average quality of directing and filmmaking.

If you watched only the best films of each year, it would be almost impossible to watch an "average film". There are thousands of films made every year. Who cares about an "average" film? If you're talking about the "average film of the films you've seen" - I don't doubt it. I would expect it, unless you're putting in a lot of work to look outside the margins, see the films at the festivals that never get distribution, etc. It's not the best time for contemporary film viewing, even while it is the best time ever for viewing films from across the history of filmmaking and across the world. Strange time.

In my opinion (and you and many other might disagree), but if I pick a random film from the 60s from any possible country, if I pick a cheaply made exploitation film, or a random commercial release or whatever, the artistry the craftsmanship the energy of a film from the 1920s for example is so so so much greater than any avergae film being made today. And I think that's true of any decade up until the 90s (where as I can observe it this knowledge of cinemai started to deteriorate slowly but surely, or just wasn't passed on any more). Direcors and other film artists on average these days are in my opinion so far away from the heights of your average visual storyteller or experimental filmmaker or whatnot than say those of the 1970s, that it boggles my mind. And it boggles my mind even more when the possibilities are in some way seemingly better than they were ever before, and more people can make films (and do make films) than ever did.

I don't find this to be the case at all among arthouse films. Quite the opposite - much more cinema knowledge, much greater craftsmanship. The editing alone is so much easier and better these days that it's almost not fair to compare how much better the editing is now.

My idea is that filmmaking as an "important" form of a rt and communication, as an influential practice is more or less gone. Like theatre, or opera or the novel, it has had it's time and it has passed. And the 20th century was obviously that high-point of cinema, which will never return again. All the more ironic that people like Ford or Curtiz during the studio-era in Hollywood though they were just making entertaining films that weren't that special cause other artists would follow in the future and make their films look like shit. Maybe many Renaissance painters thought the same at their time? Maybe Dostoevsky and Dickens and Melville and such also thought that much more brilliant minds would follow in the centuries to come? But as far as we know it now, this didn't really happen.

I'm sure exceptional filmmakers (and dozens of them) will keep working throughout this century (and probably those to come), I just don't think we won't have as many of them as before and the general level of craft of artistry in films has sunk to an incredibly low level (almost to that of TV). Other audiovisual artforms are probably more important and more relevant to a younger generation now, like the internet, video games, youtube videos, etc. etc. etc.

To me this just seems like you're watching entirely different films than me.

And maybe that's the case...

[wba]

in my opinion what you're saying is true but doesn't negate the problem. There are many many fantastic filmmakers working today and therte are many great films being made and filmmaking is far from dead. BUT, and this is a huuuuuge but: I think when comparing decades or centuries and eras (if one can put it that way) it's about the average film, the average quality of directing and filmmaking.

If you watched only the best films of each year, it would be almost impossible to watch an "average film". There are thousands of films made every year. Who cares about an "average" film? If you're talking about the "average film of the films you've seen" - I don't doubt it. I would expect it, unless you're putting in a lot of work to look outside the margins, see the films at the festivals that never get distribution, etc. It's not the best time for contemporary film viewing, even while it is the best time ever for viewing films from across the history of filmmaking and across the world. Strange time.

In my opinion (and you and many other might disagree), but if I pick a random film from the 60s from any possible country, if I pick a cheaply made exploitation film, or a random commercial release or whatever, the artistry the craftsmanship the energy of a film from the 1920s for example is so so so much greater than any avergae film being made today. And I think that's true of any decade up until the 90s (where as I can observe it this knowledge of cinemai started to deteriorate slowly but surely, or just wasn't passed on any more). Direcors and other film artists on average these days are in my opinion so far away from the heights of your average visual storyteller or experimental filmmaker or whatnot than say those of the 1970s, that it boggles my mind. And it boggles my mind even more when the possibilities are in some way seemingly better than they were ever before, and more people can make films (and do make films) than ever did.

I don't find this to be the case at all among arthouse films. Quite the opposite - much more cinema knowledge, much greater craftsmanship. The editing alone is so much easier and better these days that it's almost not fair to compare how much better the editing is now.

My idea is that filmmaking as an "important" form of a rt and communication, as an influential practice is more or less gone. Like theatre, or opera or the novel, it has had it's time and it has passed. And the 20th century was obviously that high-point of cinema, which will never return again. All the more ironic that people like Ford or Curtiz during the studio-era in Hollywood though they were just making entertaining films that weren't that special cause other artists would follow in the future and make their films look like shit. Maybe many Renaissance painters thought the same at their time? Maybe Dostoevsky and Dickens and Melville and such also thought that much more brilliant minds would follow in the centuries to come? But as far as we know it now, this didn't really happen.

I'm sure exceptional filmmakers (and dozens of them) will keep working throughout this century (and probably those to come), I just don't think we won't have as many of them as before and the general level of craft of artistry in films has sunk to an incredibly low level (almost to that of TV). Other audiovisual artforms are probably more important and more relevant to a younger generation now, like the internet, video games, youtube videos, etc. etc. etc.

To me this just seems like you're watching entirely different films than me.

And maybe that's the case...

Yes, we live in strange times, indeed!

Of course one can say who cares about an average film? And I'm not interested in watching average films myself (I always try to see a film cause I think it will be potentially great, and if I myself choose to watch a film it's always in the hope of seeing a new personal favorite). I didn't mean "average" in a derogatory way though, but just regarding the general standard of what's being made and how it is made. As I said, groundbreaking and fascinating films have been produced in every year since the invention of cinema, and will surely get made for years to come. But I don't think that's the way to judge a time period, a decade or whatever one wants to talk about, cause then everything is excellent and fine and one only has to watch the "right" stuff. Groundbreaking work has always been made and will probably always be made. I'd say one should go with the general "average" output of a country, a film movement, a studio and compare that. And in my opinion, if I watch some random 50 films from 1965 and compare them to some random 50 films from 2015, boy oh boy has there been a decline in the quality of filmmaking!

Maybe you would simply disagree, cause your standards are different than mine (and your idea of what is good filmmaking and what makes a great film and such). In my opinion the cinema knowledge has massively declined and the craftsmanship as well. The editing alone is so much worse these days that it's almost not fair to compare how much better the editing was in the past. I'd agree that it has become much much easier to edit a film. And maybe that's part of the problem: the filmmakers and editors have become lazier or simply overwhelmed by the amount of choice and possibilities they have nowadays.

Thus it could be that we are watching different films, and I have seen the "wrong" ones (though that still wouldn't invalidate my argument, which isn't so much that not as many outstanding films get made today, but more simply that the general quality of filmmaking has declined considerably), but it's probably more likely that we might watch the same films from the 21st (and thus probably also from the 20th) century and still come to vastly different judgments and conclusions about them and their qualities.

[St. Gloede]

I'm afraid I just don't see what you see, though hopefully it really is a case of watching very different films.

How many directors who have been active for, say, 10-20-30 or so years, can actually rival the 60s filmmakers when they were at the same point in their career?

While the Romanian New Wave was a wonderful breath of hope, in terms of scope it could be thrown in with the smallest movements of the 60s. It could not for a second try to match the French, Japanese, Czechoslovakian, German or Brazilian waves of 60-40 years ago.

Contemporary Contemplative Cinema is another remedy, and source of great films, but that is merely a carry-over from the late 20th century, with most of the notable entries being from the 90s and early 00s. Hell, Tarr has been retired for about a decade.

I am quite clueless on the Berlin School, perhaps they can start winning me over, but I doubt it, it just can't.

We are missing too many masters.

We could get a new french wave with 12+ all-time greats and the century would still be lagging far, far behind. Japan could get in on the action too - wouldn't close the gap.

[JADEreigns]

I'm afraid I just don't see what you see, though hopefully it really is a case of watching very different films.

How many directors who have been active for, say, 10-20-30 or so years, can actually rival the 60s filmmakers when they were at the same point in their career?

Many of the directors you love from the 60s were young in their career and faded. Some got better as their career progressed. Some worked for 20 years before peaking in the 60s. I don't see the importance of the 10-20-30 year thing. There are certainly filmmakers that seem to have already lost their mojo, some that are getting better, some that are too soon to tell. Here's a list of those that had a 10 year run or more in the current century that can compare to the greats from the 60s. And some of my favorites from the 60s would be excluded by the same criteria! It's the Soviets' fault on those, though, mostly. But, then, it's capitalism's fault for some of the newer ones, so it's all the same story! I'm only including two Americans to avoid arguments, because we all know everything American gets overrated. In this list I'm going to exclude the directors of many of my favorite films because they are new or don't work much - and it pains me!

Denis
Schanelec
Hansen-Løve
Martel
Campion
Arnold
Sokurov
Malick
Andersson
Koreeda
Ostlund
Lanthimos
Porumboiu
Wright
Jude
Haneke
Bonello
Green
Graf
Lee
Almodovar
Wong
Lynch
Hou
Gomes

Those are just my favorites, and I will readily admit that I haven't done nearly enough looking to make a deep assessment. This ignores probably 90% of the "Top 100 Directors of the 21st Century" list because I don't need no fluff. I can make a list for the 60s and 70s and compare, but I have a feeling that this list is going to trump that list easily. Not too bad!

The question is: How is that list going to look in 60 years? I'm pretty sure they'll say, "Wow, they really didn't appreciate what they had, always looking in those rose-colored glasses at the past..."

While the Romanian New Wave was a wonderful breath of hope, in terms of scope it could be thrown in with the smallest movements of the 60s. It could not for a second try to match the French, Japanese, Czechoslovakian, German or Brazilian waves of 60-40 years ago.

I'm a huge fan of the Czechoslovak New Wave myself, and they're a tough group to match. Not impossible, though! I don't have any issue matching up contemporary French films vs. the French New Wave. The Japanese New Wave is difficult to match with Japanese contemporary films, but even that wave was deeply, deeply, deeply compromised in the 70s. You could use contemporary Chinese cinema as a decent corollary, though. I'll take contemporary German cinema over the German New Wave filmmakers. Brazilian cinema from both eras is a dark spot for me, but there are plenty other places with great filmmakers working.

Contemporary Contemplative Cinema is another remedy, and source of great films, but that is merely a carry-over from the late 20th century, with most of the notable entries being from the 90s and early 00s. Hell, Tarr has been retired for about a decade.

We're talking about the 00s, though. Count it!

I am quite clueless on the Berlin School, perhaps they can start winning me over, but I doubt it, it just can't.

We are missing too many masters.

We could get a new french wave with 12+ all-time greats and the century would still be lagging far, far behind. Japan could get in on the action too - wouldn't close the gap.

This whole exercise is pretty silly, of course, because there's a huge amount of bias and a huge lack of process or attempts at removing the bias, but I feel pretty good about it.

[wba]

@Jade

More than 60% of the filmmakers you list (and I'd agree that most are great and many are also personal favorites of mine) have been already making great films (and arguably even better and more groundbreaking ones) during the 20th century (some for 2 or even 3 decades!), and they have been thoroughly socialized in that time and era and come from rich filmmaking backgrounds and traditions. Hell, some of those even got schooled during the 60s and 70s! Those are clearly great filmmakers from the past who "simply" continue (or have continued) to make great films during the 21st century - of course that's fortunate for us, but where's the fresh blood, the "young ones", the newer generations? There's like 7 or 8 of those on your list, which isn't even 30% of it...

[JADEreigns]

@Jade

More than 60% of the filmmakers you list (and I'd agree that most are great and many are also personal favorites of mine) have been already making great films (and arguably even better and more groundbreaking ones) during the 20th century (some for 2 or even 3 decades!), and they have been thoroughly socialized in that time and era and come from rich filmmaking backgrounds and traditions. Hell, some of those even got schooled during the 60s and 70s! Those are clearly great filmmakers from the past who "simply" continue (or have continued) to make great films during the 21st century - of course that's fortunate for us, but where's the fresh blood, the "young ones", the newer generations? There's like 7 or 8 of those on your list, which isn't even 30% of it...

I was responding to a question asking about filmmakers who had been working for 10, 20, 30 years. I obviously can't answer that question with filmmakers who have been working only 5 years. Those are two separate questions, and my list isn't going to answer a question it was deliberately designed to avoid answering. Furthermore, if we're talking about the 60s and 70s, who in their right mind is going to say that those filmmakers were not thoroughly socialized in an earlier era with rich filmmaking backgrounds and traditions? France's background goes to the beginning of cinema, and many of the New Wave filmmakers were film critics - perhaps no filmmakers in history had "come from rich filmmaking backgrounds and traditions". It's the exact same story. Not just close, but the exact situation you are describing as rendering some of these people void. Are we going to throw out the entire French New Wave for being too knowledgeable about older films? As for younger filmmakers, it's entirely impossible to assemble a roster of filmmakers who are truly new that will rival the new filmmakers from the 60s-70s - becuase nobody is going to do the mental gymnastics to "forget" all of the films made outside the window. Imagine trying to think of Rohmer as the guy that stopped at Perceval! Craziness! And even then he had a full 20 years of feature films - he compares to many on this list.

The 60s were full of filmmakers who made their first films in the 60s as well as filmmakers who had been making films for decades. I tried to assemble a similar list. Nobody is saying Bergman doesn't belong among major filmmakers in the 60s because he started in the 40s. On the contrary, he's one of the central figures. I don't even really like his pre-60s films!

Lynch predates the 2000s, but his best work is in the 2000s. Sokurov predates the 2000s, and his best work predates the 2000s, but his most famous work is in the 2000s and he's as sharp as ever - and Sokurov is forever and for always, and you can't take him away from me! Wong's golden age starts in 1997 and peaks in 2000, so he for sure counts. Koreeda is similar, even if you love Moborosi and After Life. Malick belongs with this group without a doubt. His early works are Bergman-esque not-nearly-as-good films. Hou has a 40 year career, with a second resurgence in 2001. I for sure count him. I might even count him twice, and if you protest - you know how many times I'm going to count him. I doubt you'll argue with Haneke, maybe Almodovar? He may span 40 years, but it's hard to argue against the films from the last two decades. The rest are all pretty solidly 20th century filmmakers, and most have filled all 20 years. I could fill another 50 with filmmakers that only made a few great films, but, again, there are MANY conversations to be made about why the 20th century is great. I'm just trying to tackle one instance so that we can see an actual fully realized counter-argument. I'm not trying to convince everyone or make every counter-argument. I'm just saying to you: I think the 20th century is as good or better as any other 20 year period, and if you at least come to the point of accepting that perhaps I'm not a complete idiot for thinking as much then perhaps this discussion has provided a worthwhile alternate persepective.

[wba]

Still, I'm sure we aren't primarily talking about

John Ford
Alfred Hitchcock
Abel Gance
Henri-Georges Clouzot
Tomu Uchida
Mikio Naruse
Heinosuke Gosho
Masahiro Makino
Helmut Käutner
Charles Chaplin
Michael Powell
William Wyler
Frank Wisbar
Yasujiro Ozu
David Lean
Carl Theodor Dreyer
Robert SIodmak
Marcel Carne

when we talk about the great filmmakers of the 60s, even though some of them made some of their best films in that decade.

[JADEreigns]

Still, I'm sure we aren't primarily talking about

John Ford
Alfred Hitchcock
Abel Gance
Henri-Georges Clouzot
Tomu Uchida
Mikio Naruse
Heinosuke Gosho
Masahiro Makino
Helmut Käutner
Charles Chaplin
Michael Powell
William Wyler
Frank Wisbar
Yasujiro Ozu
David Lean
Carl Theodor Dreyer
Robert SIodmak
Marcel Carne

when we talk about the great filmmakers of the 60s, even though some of them made some of their best films in that decade.

I didn't list anyone who only made 7 years worth of films, so Naruse doesn't compare - but if anyone is going to say that Yearning doesn't belong in the conversation for why the 60s were a great decade for cinema then that person needs to get thrown out. Same for Lean. As for Dreyer, if you can find anyone on my list that made one film in the decade then we can compare - but you can't. Ozu, similarly, with 3. I have never heard of Kautner, but if his TV films really are top tier then we can include him. I'm skeptical. Chaplin never made a good film, so he's out by default.

I'm not convinced by your counter-argument, sorry!

[wba]

Well, mine wasn't really a counter-argument and as you said, you were talking about slightly different stuff, but still I was curious, though I maybe sound a bit like a nitpicking asshole.

Maybe in this case I'm just curious, if you could come up with a list of say 20 or 30 great directors who made their debut in the 2000s and have made some (or even one or two) great films since, cause you are championing 21st century filmmaking that much?

I'm thinking of someone like Corneliu Porumboiu (who was at the Berlinale with one of his early shorts in 2005) and not someone like Lucrecia Martel (who studied filmmaking in the 1980s and whose career started in the 90s).

[wba]

@Jade


Lynch predates the 2000s, but his best work is in the 2000s. Sokurov predates the 2000s, and his best work predates the 2000s, but his most famous work is in the 2000s and he's as sharp as ever - and Sokurov is forever and for always, and you can't take him away from me! Wong's golden age starts in 1997 and peaks in 2000, so he for sure counts. Koreeda is similar, even if you love Moborosi and After Life. Malick belongs with this group without a doubt. His early works are Bergman-esque not-nearly-as-good films. Hou has a 40 year career, with a second resurgence in 2001. I for sure count him. I might even count him twice, and if you protest - you know how many times I'm going to count him. I doubt you'll argue with Haneke, maybe Almodovar?

I guess I have a slightly different perspective - cause I'd say Lynch's best work was in the 80s and 90s, Sokurov is great, but his most important work was also pre- 2000s, Wong's golden age for me starts with 1988 and ends with 1997, Koreeda is a trickier question but his 90s stuff is at least as great as anything after, Malick imo has mostly made better stuff pre-2000s, and Hou as well. Haneke and Almodovar I can't say that much about, cause I'm not that familiar with their stuff, just that both have huge careers with a huge output, and both have already made films in the 1970s and have continued since then.

Of course all of those have made great stuff in the 21st century, no denying that.

And I appreciate your posts and bringing in a different discussion and strong opinions into the forum, and if I've forgotten, a warm welcome!

[JADEreigns]

Well, mine wasn't really a counter-argument and as you said, you were talking about slightly different stuff, but still I was curious, though I maybe sound a bit like a nitpicking asshole.

Maybe in this case I'm just curious, if you could come up with a list of say 20 or 30 great directors who made their debut in the 2000s and have made some (or even one or two) great films since, cause you are championing 21st century filmmaking that much?

I'm thinking of someone like Corneliu Porumboiu (who was at the Berlinale with one of his early shorts in 2005) and not someone like Lucrecia Martel (who studied filmmaking in the 1980s and whose career started in the 90s).

The problem here is: What if half of the people I pick go on to make awful films! It will be on the record. Imagine if I had said David Gordon Green on a similar list 10 years ago! When I run for President (which will never happen) they will bring up this post (which would never happen) and my hopes would be ruined (I would actually welcome that, because being President sounds horrible). Furthermore, you object to filmmakers being "too old" and yet there are countless examples of filmmakers either reaching their peak or making their best film 20 or 30 years into their career, so... All this, of course, is without mentioning that most filmmakers make their best films at least 10 years into their career, and in order to have multiple years you've got to give them 10 years + maybe 3 years at minimum to make a second great film, so instead of your criteria being a simple case of "find me young filmmakers" it's actually a case of finding young filmmakers who immediately went into film school and started making films and debuted somewhere in the early 2000s but not a year before who have found their mature voice early in their career and have made multiple films by this date that I have seen (and I haven't been up to date in the latter half of this decade), so it's actually a very, very, very, very restrictive list that I am extremely poorly qualified to put together.

And with that in mind, here is a half-assed attempt at a list that you just may scoff at entirely, but what is life without a little risk? Also, many of your rules will be broken. Many. Some just for fun. That's just how things go sometimes.

Hou (joking, come on!)
Ade
Hansen-Løve (If you don't think she's one of the finest directors ever to have lived... well, I disagree, what can I say?)
Bi Gan (I have no idea which is his surname. Also he is for sure on the list because SO GOOD)
Frammartino (Genius)
Mendonça Filho (Yeah, he's old, but not as a filmmaker)
Östlund (Are we really counting snowboard films as disqualifying?)
Bonello (10 years to make his first great film!)
Gomes (Short film in 1999? Counting him)
Lanthimos
Jenkins (13 years to make his first great film)
What Has AARP Done For You? (Alex Ross Perry)
Bozon
Porumboiu
Muntean (Not counting some random film school and commercial stuff)
Jude
Carruth
Decker
German
Kaplanoglu
Rohrwacher
Õunpuu
Trier (not von, Joachim)
Lonergan (Old, playwright, you will argue. I will argue: NEXT!)
Alonso (I know you're going to disqualify him, too. I also know I'm not listening na na na na na)
Khrzhanovskiy (He has released only one film, and nobody knows if anything from Dau will be any good, but he's a goddamn LEGEND!)

I think that's an AMAZING list, myself - and I'm JUST scratching the surface. There are so, so many more. I haven't even seen any films from some filmmakers that others would put HIGH on this list, like Sean Baker. Or others, like (A LOT OF PEOPLE). Before I made the list I might have said, "I said the 20th Century is great, not that it has been great for young filmmakers. Shit's complicated." But, no, it has been great for young filmmakers, and I haven't even scratched the surface! The future is bright, but is it brighter than the present? Has anything ever been as bright as the present? We don't know, because it's too god damn hard to watch all of the amazing films that are being made. Even watching Schanelec's films is a chore, and she's easily one of the top 5 filmmakers going these days. But the films are still there, waiting, somehow, to be discovered.

[wba]

ok, ok, ok. I don't scoff (or I'll try not to).
Though I guess I just don't like most of those (that much or as much as you do).

But everyone has their own tastes. I guess mine are distinctly old school.

[St. Gloede]

Just to clarify: The question was not who "had been delivering strong work in the past 10, 20 or 30 years" - but comparing the new/young generation in both periods.

To rephrase it, which directors, who got started in this century (or even the decade before, if we have to go that far back) have amassed the body of work that the New Wave generation had at the same point in their career.

My stance and point is similar to WBA in that the number of obvious all-time great directors of the younger generation seems quite low compared to previous generations - especially if we look at the 60s.

Though of course, there is a big, big element of taste in this. Honestly the list is not particularly impressive to me, some all-time greats, a few possibly on the way there, and all notable and good directors, but it is not the shocking tour de force. I could get a bigger and equally impressive list from France, Japan and Czechoslovakia alone (counting the period from '57 to '76 with focus on the new generation coming in, obviously I could have included people like Ichikawa, etc. as well if I had expanded the reach slightly):

Godard
Varda
Resnais
Marker
Rohmer
Malle
Truffaut
Chabrol
Rouch
Rivette
Demy
Robbe-Grillet
Duras
-
Yoshida
Masumura
Okamoto
Suzuki
Oshima
Imamura
Teshigahara
Hani
Wakamatsu
-
Chytilová
Herz
Kachyna
Forman
Uher
Vlácil
Jakubisko
Jires
Menzel
Jasný

As WBA said, great directors who did great work both in the 20th century and is the 21st century, doesn't really sway the argument any particular way. This was also my point concerning Contemporary Contemplative Cinema. It is hard to push it as a major selling point, when about half of the key work is from the 20th century, and the remaining highlights seemed to be the tail-end.

The question is: How is that list going to look in 60 years? I'm pretty sure they'll say, "Wow, they really didn't appreciate what they had, always looking in those rose-colored glasses at the past..."

True, this happened to some extent to the 80s, being discovered as a great decade of world and arthouse cinema. It may happen again, especially as the situation is similar (an overt focus on American/Action cinema). Missed or undermined voices are likely to be found later. But that is not really a case of "what we have", it is "what we missed". And the 80s has yet to be elevated to a spectacular decade, it merely started to lose the status as the "worst decade".

If we look at a recent period, like the 90s, there actually was a lot of people feeling that we were living in the golden age of cinema - or at least that we were once again living in a great cinematic age. Leading into the 00s we had Iranian, Romanian, etc. waves and Contemplative cinema - and we could have seen an even great resurgence/continuation. This would indicate that people are very much capable of recognizing a good thing when they see it. And more importantly, the production and availability of cinema was already high.

We do actually have the tools and capacity to source out long lists of spectacular films. Programmers, critics and more engaged cinephiles have done this for decades - and now there is more access and ways to spread the word than ever before. I would claim that any additional load of cinema is perfectly countered by the ability to spread the word.

I do think you pinpointed the elephant in the room though: Funding. Clearly a large part of the issue is that younger directors seem to struggle far more to be able to consistently put out films and build notable ouvres in a decade.