Personal opinion: David Lynch. However, the two can’t really be compared, and Kubrick remains an amazing director.
nobody, David Lean and Akira Kurosawa come close but just fall short.
Weegee was better.
Andrei Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all.
All the directors I actually like.
Oh goodie! Another obnoxiously worded thread is back.
Kurosawa, but besides him no one is better than Kubrick.
Impossible question to answer!
While Stanley Kubrick’s style would top anyone else’s in my own view… other directors show immense skill and creativity in this medium.
Chalk it down to personal preference.
Nobody mentioned Raoul Walsh. He isn’t as technically flawless in his direction as Kubrick, but his body of work is pretty impressive. I’m not saying he’s better by any means, I just think all you cinephiles should check him out. Jules Dassin was pretty amazing all around as well. He’s another director I feel a lot of people on this site should look into. As far as Kubrick’s films lacking emotion I don’t completely agree. He did seem to care less about the characters inhabiting the frame than the frame itself at times, but that often worked out just fine. He chose scripts that fit his style. In that sense, he does remind me of the Coen brothers. They also seem to care more about the look of the film than the depth or emotions of their characters. However, their films look pretty damn amazing so I’m fine with it. Spartacus and Lolita and especially Paths of Glory are pretty emotional films so he wasn’t incapable of putting pathos up on the screen.
Chazz: Who’d win in a wrestling match, Lemmy or God?
Chris Moore: Lemmy.
[Rex imitates a game show buzzer]
Chris Moore: … God?
Rex: Wrong, dickhead, trick question. Lemmy IS God.
My answer is nobody. Nobody is a better director. And the only legitimate challenger is Andrei Tarkovsky.
Kubrick is in my top three along with Bergman and Malick.
This is my response to any and all fanboys of SK:
Who’s the badass that made that img?Identification of a masterwork.
Maybe some of these Kubrick blowhards will expand their notions…tho unlikely as it seems that every mubi user is already an esteemed cineaste.
People should realize that any knowledge of a certain subject is incomplete and further investigation will alter current convictions.
Why is it always either Kubrick, Kurosawa, Malick or Lynch that has people wanting to put up against the world as the “greatest” ever? Branch out a little and come back to this question.
And the “better” stuff is just silly. How can you compare a Kubrick to a Vigo? A Kurosawa to a Yoshida? A Malick to a Vertov? A Lynch to a Fassbinder? Can’t do it.
I don’t feel any director is better than Kubrick and I feel that way because:
I enjoy the cold, mechanical, and unemotive progression and predisposition of his films that don’t get bogged down with feelings and romance and all that imprecise nonsense. I enjoy the scenes and dialogue timed with some of my favorite selections of classical [and otherwise] music for the soundtrack. I look forward to reading the novels that most of his films were based on, like Lolita and Short-Timers. His cinematography is flawless, and his style consistent, so that I know that the films isn’t going to be an experiment but something I can understand immediately.
Most importantly, he put so much care into making his films that I can honestly say that I’ve deeply loved every one of his films except the ones I haven’t seen [Fear and Desire + Flight of the Padre]. The only directors that come close to this quality of consistency would be Allen, Bergman, or Haneke [a spiritual successor to Kubrick].
Ready to get skewered for fanboy love in 3, 2, 1…
I made that img myself, Nancarrow. Been messing around with Paintbrush a lot lately.
And this is my response to Mendozarias:
Since the dawn of cinema, even the most seemingly “intellectual” filmmakers (Tarkovsky, Lubitsch, Bertolucci, Tarr) have been concerned with at least one of there three things:
3. Imprecise nonsense
I can’t imagine, don’t want to imagine, a cinema without feelings. That sounds like some hell co-invented by Ayn Rand and Michael Bay.
Oh, and the beauty of films is that you can rewatch them, so you don’t need to understand them immediately, you just need to be compelled enough to contemplate and revisit them.
I take it through your “latent homosexuality” image that you do not think Kubrick is the best director. We must simply be looking for different things in movies, irreconcilable differences. But please don’t twist my statement to imply that I only watch movies once, that is really insulting. You know perfectly well that I meant consistent stylistic elements like the camerawork allowed me to click with Kubrick’s films unlike most other directors. Leave the snark for Thoughtcatalog or some other hipster blog.
Take for example, Bertolucci [listed as one of your favorite]. He must be a great director, Conformist and Dreamers were great films, but he lacks the technical quality and consistency to be the greatest, and I don’t think even you could descend low enough to call 1900 a great film. But I couldn’t say that about Kubrick.
Current times breed the most confident and ignorant critics.
Love the pic of Kubrick with Weegee, Matt.
Who directed “Weekend At Bernies”? He is way better…