Top 25 Film Directors

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Full Metal Jacket is an amazing film, one of those films you have to watch when it's on, never liked aclockwork Orange much ,I suppose it may need another viewing but personally lost interest in it after the first "shock"scene.

incidentally still none of my 10 listed yet....

None?

[Co.Down Hibee]

honest to god not one mentioned yey

[Florentine_Pogen]

Full Metal Jacket is an amazing film, one of those films you have to watch when it's on, never liked aclockwork Orange much ,I suppose it may need another viewing but personally lost interest in it after the first "shock"scene.

incidentally still none of my 10 listed yet....

IMHO, the film of A Clockwork Orange is better appreciated if you have read the book. Getting to grips with the nadsat lingo and also getting into the mind of Alex is very helpful when watching the movie.

The contribution made to Kubrick's ouevre by production designer Ken Adam should not be underestimated.

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/08/set-designer-sir-ken-adam-working-with-kubrick/

[roverthemoon]

The Shining is an absolutely immense film.

I even remember a trailer for it which was a lift filling with blood. Freaked me out at the time and can still remember it 30 years later. Genius

[Albino Rover]

6. Francis Ford Coppola

Untouchable throughout the 1970s, Francis Ford Coppola made not one but four masterpieces in that decade, and although 99% of his acclaim has been for those films, they are four of over twenty works in the life work of this master.

A risk taker and a lover of his art, this is a director who is simply incapable of giving less than everything to a project. From his earliest years Coppola led the New Hollywood movement in the late 1960s; since then he's put all he's had into every one of his films, and through all the peaks and troughs in his career, he has always remained superlatively courageous, passionate and serious about creating genuine and original cinema.

Son of a musician and an actress, he grew up in New York. Interested in science and gadgets, as well as stories, from his early years he was an experimenter. He was housebound with polio for a long spell of his childhood, and so he spent a lot of time reading plays and doing some writing of his own, as well as mastering puppetry, and that period initiated a creative prowess in Coppola. Also a proficient musician, he got into a number of colleges on music and playwriting scholarships, but in his mid-teens he learned to make home movies, and from then on his ambition was cinema.

In the early 1960s he worked on sets wherever he could, from scriptwriting to the sound department, gaining the technical experience as well as learning the pressures of working on movies. When he went to film school at UCLA, like many film students, he had attempted a number of amateur hour-long movies on the side (including the cult horror Dementia 13), but Coppola's first claim to fame was that he was the first film student to make a feature film as his master's degree thesis. At the time directing a film was something writers and crew members had to work up to doing, but the next generation would be granted a privilege (hence "the movie brats"), and it was Francis Ford Coppola who earned his peers that opportunity, with a wonderful debut piece.

You’re A Big Boy Now is not only one of the best comedies of the 1960s, but was a complete original which came immediately before a long line of coming-of-age films about awkward post-adolescents. This one shows its loveable main character interacting with his eccentric parents, friends and potential love interests amongst a mix of physical and lexical comedy styles and quirks, very ambitious camera direction and, as always with Coppola's films, the appropriate and reassuring use of lovingly-written music to set the mood, all built on the bedrock of '60s culture, with plenty of good-hearted charm. Coppola not only graduated with the piece, but got it shown at a few film festivals, and distributed by Warner Bros.

For his second film, with a proper studio backing he was allowed to scale up, and decided to adapt the 1940s stage musical Finian’s Rainbow. In a decade when musical pictures were beginning to take themselves a little too seriously, this was a fantastic, whimsical, colourful production, all about fun, although, without drawing on it, it also made an effective and topical statement about racism in American culture. It was another moderate success with audiences, and set Coppola up for a bigger project still.

After finding his feet with two very light-hearted movies, he dug much deeper with The Rain People, a road film exploring the American countryside, small towns and big cities through the eyes of a dissatisfied middle class housewife looking for escape and excitement after a life-altering change in circumstances. On her search she discovers many interesting places and people, inspiring her to rethink who she is, and who she wants to be. The film was a big critical hit, with special praise for Coppola's courage and experimental direction.

All of Coppola's early films were well-reviewed but his writing for other directors was bringing him just as much attention, particularly his script for Patton, and in light of that he was approached by Paramount for a production he could only have dreamed of. He wasn't on the original shortlist of directors, but producer Robert Evans specifically wanted a writer-director with Italian blood, so the audience could "smell the spaghetti". From earlier in this list we know Sergio Leone was first choice, but when he (and others) declined the offer, Coppola got the call-up.

He took a lot of risks with The Godfather. Paramount didn't like the dark cinematography or the long, dialogue-heavy scenes. They thought there wasn't enough action, and they were dead against many of Coppola's creative ideas for screenplay, particularly a crucial conversation entirely in unsubtitled Italian. Another big risk was in the casting: having newcomer Al Pacino in a leading role worried the studio, but Coppola was insistent on a young Italian-American actor for the role. For the first time, Coppola really had to fight to make the film his way, but he reaped the rewards. Everything he did came out perfectly in a 1972 epic that was a game-changer in as many ways as Citizen Kane had been in 1941.

The film’s contrast of dim lighting against rich colours completely changed the style of the gangster film, with deep blacks and shadows a much bigger part of the look of the film than anything before it, bringing a darkness and depth to the characters and to the telling of the story. It’s also an important example of restricted camera movement, much like classical Italian cinema, which takes away the awareness of the director and puts the viewer in the room with the characters. Rather, the directorial genius, from first shot to last, is in the placement of the camera, and the positioning of what's in the frame:

as well as artistic location shooting:

and, of course, the music.

Told entirely from the point of view of a crime family, the film initially portrays the mafia on sympathetic terms, as a protector and friend of the people. The wedding sequence introduces the characters as a happy family before, step by step, exposing us to their true evil as we, along with the previously-protected military son, discover the capabilities and moral code of the mob, while the cycle of power passes the reins from one generation to the next.

The Godfather was an unprecedented success on every level- there was, and still is an almost universal appeal to its entertainment value through compelling drama, thrilling suspense and shocking violence, and, like no film before it, it captured the lives and mentality of professional criminals with an unbiased eye, letting the actions speak for themselves. But most importantly, the film is about people. The themes of family, rivalry, loyalty, love, betrayal and a hundred others, told through the characters, are the elements we can relate to- and are what bring the life into an authentic, authoritative and essential American masterpiece.

As well as raising Coppola's reputation as one of the best young directors around, The Godfather earned him the trust to make a big budget film without studio supervision. He chose to make The Conversation, a tense thriller but also a genuine and disturbing exploration of privacy in the age of technological intrusion. The story begins with a team of surveillance experts recording a trivial conversation between a man and woman in a park, and follows one of the experts as he becomes increasingly intrigued by the conversation, discovering the information he's recording could have serious consequences. As the plot progresses the film becomes less and less about the conversation and more about the nature of the hero's obsession, completing a great creation of suspense with a chilling final act.

The Conversation is notable for its ground-breaking sound design and technical know-how, which both enhance the realism and create a very unusual audio effect to match the mixed up narrative. The film was also an insightful comment on the public paranoia of surveillance and eavesdropping that began in the Watergate era.

1974 was an incredible year for Coppola: in the Summer he released The Conversation, and in December, The Godfather: Part II. Filmed as memorably as part one, this film tells the story of Vito, and more universally, the story of the American immigrant:

as well as continuing where the last film left off, with Michael's descent into darkness.

Learning about Vito's struggle from an early age changes our understanding of the entire Corleone dynasty; it was built by a clever man on a foundation of fairness and justice in the interest of a community, and as we watch it alongside the development of the monster created in part one, we realise to what extent Michael has damaged his family and its reputation, and himself.

What's most incredible about Part II is how it seamlessly tells two stories in tandem, one of which develops the characters and plot from the first film, while the other tells the back story of Vito's rise, and both plots, in different ways, improve our understanding and appreciation of the original story, in a style that's as iconic and stylish as the original film, without ever becoming a copy of it. Separately both parts stand alone as great films, but together they strengthen each other and form the basis of a real institution of popular culture and cinema history, which is greater than the sum of its two parts.

After completing three great films in three years, Coppola sought a challenge that would take his work to another level, a challenge not only of his artistic capability but of his mental strength and moral fibre, out of which came one of the most torturous film productions ever endured. Everything that could have gone wrong went wrong. He went horribly over schedule and budget, Marlon Brando showed up late, overweight and hadn’t learned his lines, Martin Sheen had a heart attack, sets were destroyed by a typhoon, but out of years on-and-off in the Phillippines and over a year of editing the miles and miles of film he’d made, came one of the great movie miracles: a dark, hypnotic nightmare, a recreation of war and all its effects. As Coppola said, “My movie is not about Vietnam, my movie is Vietnam.”

The production was relentless and painstaking but the product is one of the most breathtaking films to look at, a spectacle with mind-blowing visuals, sound and music, and the ultimate war experience. It has to be seen to be believed, and nobody who sees it could forget the action, the insanity, the psychedelia, the fear, The Doors, the helicopters, the trauma and the horror of Apocalypse Now.

Coppola achieved remarkable things in the ‘70s; his legendary work defines the cinema of the decade, but like every other director of the time he would never get the same freedom and trust again. By the beginning of the '80s the studios were changing, creative control was tightening, and after a decade of superiority, Francis Ford Coppola lost everything.

In order to continue his ambition, and possibly to atone for the seriousness and violence of his work in the '70s, Coppola put everything into his next production, choosing to make another musical. One From The Heart took a long time in production, but it was spectacular, enchanting and warm, captured happiness and romance, and suspended belief with colour, light and music. The film cost about $26 million to make, and made less than a million back. Coppola had to file for bankruptcy.

After that, forced to make films to pay off his debts, for the first time Coppola found himself constantly compromised and scrutinised under the watchful eyes of authority. He had mixed results with two adaptations of S.E. Hinton novels, both made in the same year. One was The Outsiders, a growing up tale about a teenage gang in New York, which was an minor success. The other was Rumble Fish, the story of a schoolboy who aspires to be like his cool, but troubled, older brother. It was a massive financial flop.

His next film, The Cotton Club, followed the characters and misdeeds behind the scenes of a 1930s Harlem nightclub, embodying the mood and spirit of the scene, as well as its wonderful jazz music. It was another critical hit but hardly made half its budget back at box office.

After four films in five years Coppola's financial situation had hardly improved but he finally struck gold with Peggy Sue Got Married, a high-school comedy in which a middle-aged woman relives her senior year in the 1960s. Dealing with friendships and nostalgia as well as outright comedy, it was well-reviewed, and a long-awaited financial success.

His next film was the military drama Gardens Of Stone. It was a forgettable film and a box-office failure but but before production started it was foreshadowed by a tragedy. Days before shooting was due to begin, Coppola's first son Gian-Carlo died at the age of 22 in a boating accident with the film's star Griffin O'Neal. It was discovered that O'Neal was in charge of the boat while on drugs and he was fired from production.

Partly in homage to his son, and his love of cars, Coppola's next film was a biopic of the automobile entrepreneur Preston Tucker, entitled Tucker: The Man And His Dream. Indeed, the film concentrates more on the dream than the man, but it's one of Coppola's best-looking films from his decade of darkness.

After a sluggish 1980s, Coppola was still financially insecure, but opened the '90s with a return to the series that made his reputation, and a Part III. Of course, the main reason Coppola returned to the series was for the much-needed money, but after 16 years, especially as the rumours grew stronger, there was a great public calling for a full conclusion of the Corleone story, and Paramount had left Coppola a long-standing offer that he could no longer refuse.

The film reunited us with a much older Michael, ridden with guilt and shame, and introduced us to his children, grown up and with their own ambitions, as well as touching on conspiracies on global companies and religious corruption, but despite Coppola and Mario Puzo's best attempts to do their original stories justice the film was a major disappointment. However, it's undeniably photographed masterfully, and contains one of the best and most famous pieces sound editing in film history, used with heartbreaking effect. Coppola has remained insistent that The Godfather series is two films, and Part III was an epilogue.

Finally financially stable after ten years, he chose Bram Stoker's Dracula as his next project. Although it fits all the conventions of the classic films, it's a more atmospheric horror than other versions, and it also offers a unique and original look at Count Dracula's past and his quest for his lost love as well as his blood lust. Coppola also brought a technical wizardry that had never been applied to the story with such great effect, with beautiful sets, costumes and camera work, and his interpretation of one of the classic Hollywood stories, if not the best, is by far the most ambitious.

After beginning the 1990s with two massive financial hits, Coppola was on a much steadier foot, and next signed up to make a comedy, Jack, a film about a 10-year old boy with a condition that makes him appear like a 40-year-old man. Although it's one of his least mature films, and was mostly panned by critics, it was another financial hit, and set Coppola up to film his adaptation of John Grisham's legal thriller The Rainmaker, released to great reviews.

After finally pulling himself back and getting his estate and reputation back in order, Coppola went ten years without making a film. During that time he led a full-scale restoration and reassembly of Apocalypse Now, in its new Redux form. It was an expensive project, released to mixed opinions, but it was the renovation Coppola believed the film needed to stay sharp for a new audience. After his hiatus he came back with Youth Without Youth, a European love story enveloped in dark mystery, based on a Romanian novella of the same name. The film begins by depicting a shy, depressed old man who struggles to pursue women, but a freak event triggers a fantastic twist in fortune and changes his entire outlook on life. It's clearly a very personal and self-indulgent film but importantly to Coppola it was the story he wanted to tell, the film he chose to make, shot with the unmistakable precision and sensitivity of an experienced master.

In 2009 he hit 70, but you're never too old to make a masterpiece. With Tetro, Coppola wrote and directed a family drama like no other. Set in Buenos Aires, the plot of the film reconnects a long-separated Italian-Argentinian family, divided, in part, by an ongoing creative rivalry that originated further up the family tree. It deals with family secrets, abandonment, guilt, the burden of past demons, the pursuit of dreams, enlightenment, forgiveness and openness, all connected through different arts, culture and a complicated family history, and intensified by an underlying sense of suspense that subconsciously gets us wound up with tension and anticipation, before resolving itself with a meaningful conclusion. It's one of Coppola's finest and most fascinating films, with a multitude of intensely-explored themes and a beautiful and vivid visual style. Every frame of Tetro is exciting to look at- it's a monochrome marvel, with an emotional centre so strong and complex that everyone who sees it will take a different meaning from it. It's another film written very personally by Coppola- although far from autobiographical, many aspects of the characters draw similarities to his own artistic heritage, and he said of the film: "None of it happened, but it's all true."

Coppola proved himself in the early 1990s as a great horror director, and he made a return to the genre with his most recent film, the twisted and original Twixt. The film contrasts the human with the supernatural, following a writer on a book tour as he comes into contact with a young murder victim, who initially haunts his dreams, but begins to distort and influence his reality. The film wasn't well-received, and it will go down as a lesser film of Coppola's but its atmosphere and some of its imagery last long in the memory and, released only three years ago, it shows that he's still willing and able to make films; now, at 75, he continues to work as a producer. He hasn't announced any future directing projects, although he has stated he feels he still has one more in him.

Even if we don't get another, Francis Ford Coppola will always be remembered as a master of the visual and audial, but crucially a fearless filmmaker and a pioneer, who from his earliest work committed more to his art than most would ever dare, and, in both success and failure, held nothing back. He was instrumental in the essential renaissance of American cinema, which got the ball rolling for many of our great directors, and although looking through history those were undeniably his best years, he's always remained undeterred by the critics and never lost any of his courage, commitment or expertise, and he will always be the defining director of one of cinema's true golden ages.

[tongue_tied_danny]

Great write up Albino....

I'm not the biggest fan of Coppola's work but there's no denying his influence. I first noticed Coppola as a teenager when I watched both of the SE Hinton adaptations. I thought The Outsiders was pretty cheesy but I loved Rumble Fish and watched it several times back in my youth.

[JustOneCornetto]

Fantastic write up AR on one the truly great heavyweights in film making.

Tetro is one of those films I've always promised myself to watch from a personal point of view as there is an Italian/Argentine connection in my family ancestry.

I'm pretty sure I can guess at least 3 of the top 5 but it's a tough call for the daddy of them all.

[Ludo*1]

Apocalypse Now is a boring film to me... there I said it. That being said, it's hard to argue it's not one of the most iconic films of all time and it's use of music is superb from The Doors - This is the End to Rise of the Valkyries. Superb and it's a film that sticks with you, even if you're not exactly in a rush to watch it again.

The Godfather Parts I and II are the two best films of all time in my opinion and cements Coppola a place in the list. The third one was piss poor and I was especially annoyed at the casting of his daughter in a vital role when she could barely act, not to mention the whole incestuous plot line and the dealings with the Vatican made it a poor attempt to modernise two classics. It's a very decent film on its own but doesn't deserve to be associated with such an iconic franchise.

I also think his adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula is absolutely superb and Gary Oldman is an excellent choice as Dracula. I can't understand why it's not loved more, thought it was a brilliant film, not an all time classic by any stretch but thoroughly enjoyable and that's even despite Keanu Reeves' inability to act.

ETA: I'd always thought he was the director of the Jeepers Creepers series too and was surprised to see it not included in the write-up, but after having a quick check, it turns out he was only a producer. The more you know.

[EdgarusQPFC]

I also think his adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula is absolutely superb and Gary Oldman is an excellent choice as Dracula. I can't understand why it's not loved more, thought it was a brilliant film, not an all time classic by any stretch but thoroughly enjoyable and that's even despite Keanu Reeves' inability to act.

Would be an awful film if not for Gary Oldman's performance. There's a anime series about Dracula, specifically Oldman's Dracula which changes the ending of the film where in Dracula is not killed but captured by Van Hellsing and experimented on and becomes a hunter of other vampires and creatures. Its outstanding

[Albino Rover]

5. Joel & Ethan Coen

Consistent and proficient over the last thirty years their body of work covers a lot of ground, but regardless of style or genre these two are a creative unit like no other, incomparable masters of plot and kings of comedy.

The Coen brothers are not only outstanding directors and masterful writers but have produced all of their films, and edited most of them under the pseudonym Roderick Jaynes. Their films encompass a massive range of situations and settings but they share similarities in their strange, often abstract imagery, Jewish humour, irony, character comedy and several signature Coen moments to look and listen out for. There is an unmistakable familiarity and consistency which unites all of their work: the repeated lines, ringing telephones, point-of-view shots of a figure of power behind a desk, among other trademarks, appear in all their films, yet in terms of plot none of the Coen films are anything like each other. They're master storytellers across many styles, settings and periods of time and while all their works are of the same high standard, each of them paints a different picture.

The brothers' joint venture into filmmaking began in suburban Minnesota in the 1960s. Joel, the elder brother, saved to buy a Super 8 camera, and together the brothers experimented and recreated TV movies with their own personal twist. Joel graduated from the NYU film school and found work on sets, as a PA, and in the editing department. After Ethan earned his degree in philosophy the brothers began working together again, and from their first full screenplay they were a hit.

Blood Simple was released in 1984. The film is set in a world where greed and lust lure everyone into a trap of crime and horror. In the first scene a man hires a detective to photograph his wife with another man, and from there the plot twists and descends into a dark, sleazy nightmare, in which almost all the characters find themselves in situations of stress and paranoia, and consequently they abandon reason and react with cut-throat tenacity. The events lead to multiple tragedies, yet the plot never seems to go over the top, because it's all logical: each horrific act leads to the next. But the Coens were laughing the whole way through. The humour is shocking but it's prominent, and the film, although it plays like a classic film noir, isn't to be taken seriously- rather than fitting into the classic crime story it shamelessly exaggerates it.

After a cult success with their first work, rather than rushing to make another film themselves, their next screenplay was for the Sam Raimi film Crimewave. They took their time before returning as directors with Raising Arizona, a comedy with which they fully established themselves as unusual storytellers, with a unique style, but on a much more conventional and accessible level. The plot is an unlikely love story between a repeated convenience store robber, H.I., and a female police officer, Edwina, who meet, repeatedly, during H.I.'s spells in prison. When Hi and Ed decide to leave their respective occupations, the ex-cop and the ex-con start a family by kidnapping one of quintuplets, and from there the chases, surprises, fights and arguments yield pure comedy gold. One of the funniest films of the 1980s, it was an instant success, but since then the directors have only matured and grown.

After a few years choosing and scripting their next project, they changed scope with a much more serious film to open the 1990s, with Miller’s Crossing. Set in the prohibition era it considers the underworld of fixed betting, gang wars, trust and backstabbing among a criminal hierarchy of men who are powerful and influential but desperately insecure. The portrait of the jealousy and mistrust among gangsters is exceptional but the film also benefits from the visual excellence and humour the brothers appear to exude naturally.

Their fourth film, Barton Fink, depicts a gifted and successful Broadway playwright who makes the tricky transition into becoming a Hollywood screenwriter. Staying in a strange hotel next door to a very friendly insurance salesman as he works on his first screenplay, Barton finds himself struggling to adapt to the West coast, working for producers and trying to appeal to a brand new audience, and that satire of the film industry is combined with a sudden and surreal element of danger and mystery, which turns the film completely on its head.

Barton Fink is a candid exhibition of the reality of realising your dreams and meeting your heroes, and that those ideas may be best left a fantasy. It was also the Coens' first collaboration with Roger Deakins on camera; a cinematographer who has worked on all but two of their films since, with a clean visual style that complements the brothers' material to perfection and truly completed the Coen look.

Their fifth film, Hudsucker Proxy, is often considered one of their lesser films but at the time it was their biggest budget project, and it remains one of their most ambitious in terms of scale. It's a comedy, set in 1950s New York, where a large corporation about to go public plans to drop share prices by appointing a rookie fresh from business school as chairman of the board, but fortunes change with an element of dumb luck, and the accidental invention of a craze. Hudsucker was an unsuccessful risk, but the Coens came back two years later, showing the same level of ambition and originality with one of their greatest triumphs.

Fargo, complex and comic, follows a heavily pregnant police chief as she investigates the case of an intriguing and original kidnapping gone drastically wrong. We know the culprits from the early stages and we watch the crime take place, but, like Blood Simple, both the situation and the police investigation present unexpected complications and interruptions, and glances into the characters' private lives offer comic relief and insight into the mechanics of the case. The Coens claim before the opening titles that the film is based on a true story- that proved to be a joke, but we're not meant to know that as we watch the action, which is one of the reasons why its humour is so shocking and some of its scenes are so unexpected.

It's possibly the Coens' best-written film in terms of both plot and dialogue, as well as observational comedy, the telling of the the story through the thoughts of the characters, and the setting- a cold, white landscape from which the directors capture natural beauty as well as creating chilly atmosphere:

In all its glory and genius, Fargo was a huge critical hit worldwide, and the Coens' next film, The Big Lebowski, was its cult equivalent.

Two men in Los Angeles share the name Jeff Lebowski: a disabled entrepreneur and an unemployed waster. A case of mistaken identity and a kidnapping quickly descends into chaos, which, for the unemployed Lebowski, "The Dude", is a mere distraction from hanging out with his bowling buddies, an argumentative 'Nam vet and a quiet social outcast whom everybody tells to shut up. But throughout the fast-paced crime plot and the psychedelic visuals of the acid flashbacks/dream sequences is a screenplay realised so naturally and comically that the laughs overpower everything else. It's also a film that prides itself in being delightfully larger-than-life, turning ten-pin bowling into something altogether more theatrical, and depicting the casualties as casually as the comedy, with mad characters, marijuana and white Russians.

The comedy value of the film speaks for itself but it concludes with something of a profound moment of clarity: when we first look at the film, one Lebowski is a hard-working businessman, and one is a care-free slacker. But when the mayhem of the plot is all over and the dust has settled we find we've been offered a new point of view: one defines his success in dollars, the other in self-satisfaction.

By the end of the '90s the brothers, in their mid-40s, were already treasured and respected filmmakers. They entered the third millennium with a journey into Depression-era Mississippi which, in true Coenesque fashion, is a story of deep profundity and literal humour in equal measure. O Brother, Where Art Thou? is told in a Southern dialect by three escapees of a chain gang. At first they may appear idiots, but along their journey each of them shows degrees of wisdom and knowledge, and together they are enlightened by each passing encounter. Throughout their adventure the fugitives face several moral tests and moments of extreme good and bad luck, as well as providing hilarious situation comedy and countless one-liners, and impromptu bluegrass music. Similarly to the rumour with Fargo, the brothers claimed to have based their script on Homer's Odyssey, but, although the film bears many resemblances, they later admitted to having never read it.

They wasted no time in making their next film, a slick, intense and original first-person crime story, entitled The Man Who Wasn't There. Set in the age of the earliest films noir, in 1940s California, it's told by a middle-aged barber of few words, unhappily married and looking for money for an investment. The film is awash with irony, tragedy, philosophy and beautiful black-and-white photography that give the story an uncanny authenticity; the Coen brothers had dabbled in noir previously but with this film they interpreted the genre with real seriousness and, as well as creating a tribute to classic noir, made a film worthy of being mentioned among its influences, with themes of crime and punishment, small town boredom and male loneliness that are as relevant to today's audiences, amongst the blackmail, infidelity, secrecy and murder.

After a prolific start to the 21st century they released a further two in quick succession; an outrageously comic depiction of an over-complicated divorce case, Intolerable Cruelty, and their elaborate interpretation of the 1955 Ealing comedy The Ladykillers, with plenty of Coen quirks and twists, and a large taste of the culture, racial diversity and humour of modern America to bring the classic story into the present day. The Ladykillers also marked the first time that their on-screen directing credit was for "Joel & Ethan Coen" - previously Joel was the only credited director, possibly as a dig at the DGA for only allowing one name as director, except, vaguely, for "established partnerships".

After releasing four films in the first five years of the 2000s they took a much longer time before completing their next work, their first serious novel adaptation, a film which has since been universally appreciated as one of the best in recent years, their showcase masterpiece, No Country For Old Men. The story, narrated by a sheriff in West Texas, is of a huntsman who finds himself the first on the eerily silent scene of a drug deal gone wrong. He runs with the cash, only to be tracked by a crazed killer, who himself is pursued by the law. As the chase intensifies the film becomes colder, more tense, and more appropriately darkly comic than anything the brothers have managed before or since. The build-up of suspense is masterful - they can create tension from a man sitting drinking milk - and in terms of camera direction the film is not only clinical, but creative, ambitious and unique.

One of the greatest things about the Coens' work on No Country is their ability to explore all the film's characters in great depth without ever slowing down the plot or losing the excitement of the chase, as well as once again characterising the setting with atmosphere as well as aesthetic.

After the release and immense critical reception of No Country the Coens' reputation was at an all-time high. Any masterpiece is a tough act to follow, and in light of that they opted to go for something completely different, a much shorter and less serious effort, secret intelligence farce Burn After Reading. The plot is a non-stop snowballing comedy, which kicks of very early on when two small-fry gym employees accidentally come into possession of a piece of completely useless intelligence, and are pursued by several interested parties of varying importance, whom they try to blackmail without ever having a clue what they're doing. Even more than any other Coen comedy this one plays on its many screwball characters, played by its all-star cast, who back-stab and conspire until the CIA, as baffled as anyone else, are forced to draw the mayhem to a bizarre, but strangely appropriate conclusion.

The following year came another mental maze, albeit under completely different circumstances. A Serious Man is centred around the life of Larry Gopnik, a husband, father of a teenage son and daughter and physics lecturer in the running for tenure, in 1960s Minnesota. On paper he seems to have a perfect family situation but, beginning with trouble with an Asian student, his son's Bar Mitzvah preparations, the arrival of his borderline autistic brother and a revelation with his widower friend, he begins to wonder if he can take anything for granted and, convinced his faith as a Jew is being tested, as his life falls apart he visits three different rabbis, none of whom take him as seriously as he takes himself. Everything in his life is threatened, and as a good Jew, or a serious man, he goes looking for answers.

Introduced by a trivial Yiddish prologue and concluded by a bizarre and unexpected ending it's almost incomprehensible, but perhaps the answer to Larry's problems lie in the prologue, with his Polish ancestors. The film is open to all kinds of interpretations but works on a basic level too, with the humour and drama every bit as prominent and relevant as the mystery. Although the film touches on many topics in such a way that it’s impossible to understand it all, its plot is as simple and elemental as ordinary life, but at the same time as mind-boggling. Throughout all the questions the film is also a vivid depiction of the suburban America of the 1960s, which is clearly a semi-fantastical interpretation of the childhood of its writer-directors. Full of the unique humour and mystery that makes the Coens what they are, A Serious Man embodies their greatness as filmmakers but also their personalities, heritage and religion. It's also one of the few Coen films with no A-list stars- the leading roles in the film are filled by an all-Jew cast, even prompting the post-credit epilogue- "No Jews were harmed in the making of this film."

The brothers' next release was their faithful re-adaptation of a book previously filmed in 1969, True Grit. The same fourteen-year-old Mattie and one-eyed Rooster set out to avenge Mattie's father's murder, with the help of Texas ranger LeBoeuf, but this time with characteristics and circumstances more grizzly and unforgiving than the film's namesake, as per Charles Portis' novel. The Coens' True Grit is a character-based film in which, in a way, each of the characters tests and finds the grit inside themselves. The film was a long-awaited genuine and serious revival of the neglected Western genre, and the scenic photography is arguably among the best of all time:

Their most recent film, Inside Llewyn Davis, is set in the pre-Dylan folk music scene in New York and depicts the life of a young musician as he sleeps on sofas, plays his music in cafés and deals with some personal complications. The film was accused of over-romanticising the world of folk music at the time but it certainly shows a lot of respect and admiration for the artists and T Bone Burnett's original songs.

With such an impressive hit rate across their 16 films they're universally popular filmmakers, who endlessly push themselves, and keep trying new ideas with results that define the phrase "weird and wonderful", possibly to continue with an ambitious swords-and-sandals drama which, according to some rumours, will be their next project. These days most directors pushing 60 are practically in their prime: there's still plenty of life in these two, and their constant drive, innovation and combined imagination guarantees more to come.

The true genius of the Coen brothers seems to be in the combination of interesting people and original plot, but as well as inventing stories to suit their characters, their writing technique has always provided a platform for stunning visuals. One of the greatest aspects of moviemaking is providing a feast for the eyes, and in this age of cinema Joel and Ethan Coen are two of the greatest masters of the aesthetic, who continue to create stunning imagery that combines fantasy and reality. But prevalently, throughout their films there’s always a large dose of fun and surprise- part of the intrigue is the unpredictability and excitement of watching one of their films for the first time and being aware that even in a simple situation, knowing the Coen brothers, anything could happen. As a great film critic put it, "they build crazy walls with sensible bricks."

[alsy]

Hmm. Slightly surprised. I had them at number two (behind Ken Loach) and thought there was a very good chance that that's where they'd come in the overall poll (behind Scorcese). Shows how much I know.

Another superb write-up from AR.

[Ira Gaines]

It'll need to be four exceptional talents in order to get ahead of these two men. Absolute masters of the art with a catalogue of movies that anyone would be proud of.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Top writeup yet again, and no sane person could argue with top five status for these guys. I think we can all make a pretty good guess at the remaining directors, but the order is something else. Like AM above, I had Ken Loach in pole, but that's obviously a minority view - although entirely correct.

[AberdeenBud]

Great work again AR, I'd happily pay money to read this thread tbh, better than what you get in dedicated movie magazines imo.

"This isn't Vietnam Smokey. This is bowling, there are rules."

The Coens were 5th in my list as well. Again an amazingly varied and interesting body of work they have built up.

I'm guessing 3 of my top four will be 1,2,3(Berg, QT, Marty S), not sure about the other one though.

[Florentine_Pogen]

"Let me tell you something, pendejo. You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash your piece out on the lanes, I’ll take it away from you and stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger till it goes click. You said it man. Nobody fucks with the Jesus."

Great write up. In my humble estimation, Fargo is the best film of the 90's.

[yoda]

If the Coen Brothers weren't in your top five then turn in your badge and gun immediately. They've had a couple of dreadful films but their back catalogue (directing, at least) is an incredible body of work, so many hits. A number of directors would probably do awful, awful things to have a couple of these on their résumé:

Fargo

No Country For Old Men

Blood Simple

Barton Fink

Miller's Crossing

Raising Arizona

The Man Who Wasn't There

Burn After Reading

A Serious Man

I'm not a big fan of The Big Lebowski but it has almost universal acclaim. True Grit is another one I'm not entirely sold on but it has more than favourable reviews.

The top four?

Scorsese

Spielberg

Hitchcock

Tarantino

There's one of those that definitely doesn't deserve a top four place

Having expanded my horizons since the poll was completed, I'm surprised we're not going to see the likes of Kurosawa, Bergman, Herzog, and even Hayao Miyazaki could all have placed in the top 25 (and almost certainly my top 10 had I watched more of their films).

[Ira Gaines]

As long as Tarantino is #4, I really don't care how the other three place. All three of them deserve the top spot.

[Florentine_Pogen]

If the Coen Brothers weren't in your top five then turn in your badge and gun immediately. They've had a couple of dreadful films but their back catalogue (directing, at least) is an incredible body of work, so many hits. A number of directors would probably do awful, awful things to have a couple of these on their résumé:

Fargo

No Country For Old Men

Blood Simple

Barton Fink

Miller's Crossing

Raising Arizona

The Man Who Wasn't There

Burn After Reading

A Serious Man

I'm not a big fan of The Big Lebowski but it has almost universal acclaim. True Grit is another one I'm not entirely sold on but it has more than favourable reviews.

The top four?

Scorsese

Spielberg

Hitchcock

Tarantino

There's one of those that definitely doesn't deserve a top four place

Having expanded my horizons since the poll was completed, I'm surprised we're not going to see the likes of Kurosawa, Bergman, Herzog, and even Hayao Miyazaki could all have placed in the top 25 (and almost certainly my top 10 had I watched more of their films).

I always suspected this poll, interesting as it will be, will be 'Hollywood heavy', which is a great shame as there are a myriad of ridiculously talented directors outwith the US bubble. And I'm not just talking about Europe.

[Rabbi Williams]

Love the Coens, don't think I voted for them but again probably should have. I guess the top 4 will be QT or Scorsese at the top with Spielberg and Hitchcock.

[Jupiter Jazz]

Brilliant write-up. Had the Coens top of my list without even thinking about it. As said their catalogue of films is just ridiculously good even their half arsed efforts are superior to a lot of filmmakers best work.