given im not a fan of Stone in the slightest…..Kurosawa by default.
yeah Stone sucks, thats what I hoped someone would say
hahahahahahahahahaha
like this needs to be asked.
Man who has directed some of the greatest films ever made vs. Hack.
[I’m for Kurosawa]
Yeah, Kurosawa is the only, in this case
Woody Allen for Hannah and Her Sisters. The best film nominated.
You’re getting you years mixed up …
1985 had Kurosawa pitted against John Huston for Prizzi’s Honor, Hector Babenco for Kiss of the Spider Woman, Peter Weir for Witness, and Sidney Pollack for Out of Africa. The “scandal” was that Spielberg wasn’t nom’d for The Color Purple.
Pollack won.
1986 had Stone, Woody Allen for Hannah and Her Sisters, James Ivory for A Room With a View, Roland Joffe for The Mission, and David Lynch for Blue Velvet.
Stone won.
I would have voted for Kurosawa and Lynch, respectively, with a high honorable mention to Woody. And their movies.
That the American director won in ‘86 shouldn’t come as a surprise – it’s the Oscars for fuck’s sake (What’s really more surprising is the frequency of discussions about the bloody Oscars in theauteurs).
A recall? Personally I’d pick RAN any day, no question. On the other hand, although I would not consider myself a big fan of Oliver Stone (perhaps too political), I wouldn’t think of him as a bad filmmaker either. But more important, Stone directed PLATOON, a film about a disastrous, unpopular war that he himself fought. He was there, the film was even dedicated to his mates. No filmmaker is more deserving to tell that story, critically acclaimed or not. He has my respect.
Everyone always forgets Chopping Mall, oh well.
In response to the OP, Stone has been on a downward slope ever since he decided to make movies, although I am excited to see the clusterfuck he creates with his upcoming documentary on Chavez; hopefully it will be more interesting than his dull excursion into Bush-land.
@C. SEPESY – You’re right! Blue Velvet- boy that seemed like yesterday.
Hard choice actually-Ran is not one of my favorite Kurosawas and Platoon is probably Stone’s best. Stone is not a hack-he has done several good films(Salvador, U Turn) altho he seems to be on a downhill slide-I give him credit for being adventurous.
I hope you guys aren’t saying that Platoon wasn’t a good movie.
Manasto Jones to be honest, Platoon was the only movie I didnt hate from Oliver Stone outright. For the most part it was enjoyable and had a stellar cast (Forest Whitaker, Willem Dafoe, Johnny Depp, etc..)
but yea…I wouldn’t consider it “great”
Kurosawa. Oliver Stone is nothing but a joke compared to Kurosawa.
Oliver has made 2 masterpieces in JFK and Alexander, but I’ve never been a huge fan of Platoon. That said, Ran is, in my opinion, one of the five best films ever made.
I personally found Alexander to be one of the worst movies I’d ever seen. Ran on the other hand is a masterpiece in my book.
I think Stone’s one of the most talented filmmakers alive. He’s terribly inconsistent but all the more interesting for it. You got to appreciate a guy who can make something as controversial and stylish as JFK as well as a straightforward tribute to rescue workers like World Trade Center. Both great movies. Stone is continually interesting because he takes chances and is always capable of making a classic. he often strikes out but at least he has the guts to swing for the fences just about every time.
I’ve got nothing against Stone, but Kurosawa poured his love into Ran, so he should of won.
Kurosawa
Although i love Oliver Stone this really is no contest. Kurosawa would win just about 9 out of ten times. For any of his films really, even though he did not end up winning. Sydney Pollack won, damn sometimes the Academy rewards box office as much as acclaim!
Kurosawa
i hate oliver stone. i think it should have been akira or david lynch
As already stated by many, Oliver Stone is absolutely terrible. How can the even be compared. Kurosawa automatically.
May I repeat you’re all discussing two different years
Stone and Kurosawa did not compete against each other in that silly contest
Despite the fact that they may not have competed it’s obviously Kurosawa, he is the master. Plus I think Ran to be the greatest film ever, so of course I would choose him. I don’t like stone. Plus who has more artistic credibility? Kurosawa of course.
okay….see i wondered if we were talking about the same year.
That year gave it to Stone for Platoon…when David Lynch should have received it for Blue Velvet
i can’t tolerate Oliver Stone. He gives a bad name to Virgos everywhere.
Fuck Platoon.
First of all,Kurosawa was nominated for best director 1986,so he lose the Oscar by Sydney Pollack for Out of Africa.I think it’s ridiculous to discuss who of them is better director.And of course Kurosawa is also better than Stone.
But it seems that people in this topic don’t understand the why the Academy decides.I will give some examples:
Federico Fellini:1961-He lost the Oscar for Dolce Vita.The winners were Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins for West Side Story.
1963-Nominated for best director with 81/2.Winner was Tony Richardson for Tom Jones(oh mfg)
Ingmar Bergman:1974-Nominated for best director with Cries and Whispers.Winner was George Roy Hill for the Sting.
1976-Nominated for best director for Face to Face.Winner was John G.Avildsen for Rocky.(This year,Scorsese was not even nominated for Taxi-Driver).
1984-Nominated for Fanny och Alexander.Winner was James L. Brooks for Terms of Endearment(The members of the Academy should have been executed for this).
All these 82 years,a foreign-language film has never won Best Director.So I will find it typical of them to give an Oscar to Stone instead of Kurosawa.Ok,they maybe want to promote american films.
BUT,the MOST RIDICULOUS is that not even the best directors that worked in America have ever won Oscars.Alfred Hitchcock,Stanley Kubrick,Orson Welles(and others,but these are the most important),have never won an Oscar.I have no further comments to make.
OLIVER STONE
I love both directors for very different reasons, but I honestly believe that Kurosawa will have more of a lasting impact on the way we view cinema. His primary training was as a painter — and it certainly shows up in all of his films. He paints in the corner, and takes pain to ensure an evocative composition in absolutely every shot.
There is of course also the matter of “spoon feeding” the audience the ‘message’ of the picture versus simply showing action and allowing the audience to come to their own conclusions (certainly though with an eye toward a goal). I do not believe that Stone is interested in doing this. He has something to say, and he makes damn sure that the audience understands it his way.
One may take it in terms of egotistical vs. ego-less filmmaking: Kurosawa’s intent is never to force the audience to experience him or his view (he is interested in telling a good story…well.). Stone’s approach to guiding the audience through a picture involves hitting them with quarters at the bottom of a tube sock.
That is not to say I haven’t enjoyed some of Stone’s pictures.
Doc Oz
Ran (1985) came in time for Akira Kurosawa to be nominated for Director Oscar at 86 awards.
Oliver Stone won for Platoon. If you could have a recall who would win?
Akira Kurosawa (RAN) Oliver Stone (PLATOON)