The popular magazine Entertainment Weekly (EW) is famous and notorious for its lists and lists of lists. In one of their latest issues, they published a list of the Top 25 Active Directors, defined as the “most talented, in-demand directors today.” But what exactly are they measuring, artistic talent, power to get a film made, prestige among colleagues, impact on the industry in terms of making commercially successful picture.To put it bluntly, you may be very talented and still not be in demand.And you cannot be active if you have made good movies that have been flops.
Like the Oscar nominations, it's easy to argue and dismiss the EW list.Also like the Oscar nominations for Best Picture or Best Director, each one of us can compile his or her list and complain about glaring omissions.Oliver Stone is very active (“W.”) but is not on the list.David Cronenberg is one of the most talented and accomplished directors around, but is missing in action, even though his last two pictures, “A History of Violence” and “Eastern Promises,” were good and commercial.
Glaring Omissions:
Gus Van Sant has just received his second nomination for directing “Milk,” but apparently he is not worthy to be on EW's list.
I also can't help but notice that there are no women or African American on the list, which may be justified but indicates the dismal position of women in both the indie world and mainstream Hollywood. Furthermore, brilliant directors of non-fictional fare, such as Werner Herzog (“Encounters at the End of the World”) are also not included.
All-American:
What about foreign filmmakersShouldn't they be included on the listThe only one included is Spaniard Pedro Almodovar (“Volver”).
Discrimination Against Age:
The follies of constructing such lists leads to placing Tarantino (number 6) above Clint Eastwood (number 17), even though he has not made a movie in years (so much for being active), whereas Eastwood, 78, is at the top of his form, having made two films this year and in prep for this new one, a biopic-drama about Nelson Mandela starring Morgan Freeman.
Genre
Perhaps the most interesting generalization to be drswn out of such a list concenrs genre: Most of the innovative, in-demand Hollywood directors have made and continue to make their mark not in prestige genres, such as the biopic or serious dramas, but in the popular formats of the more “debnased” genres of horror, sci-fi, and actioner.
Hollywood 2009: Top Directors List
The popular magazine Entertainment Weekly (EW) is famous and notorious for its lists and lists of lists. In one of their latest issues, they published a list of the Top 25 Active Directors, defined as the “most talented, in-demand directors today.” But what exactly are they measuring, artistic talent, power to get a film made, prestige among colleagues, impact on the industry in terms of making commercially successful picture. To put it bluntly, you may be very talented and still not be in demand. And you cannot be active if you have made good movies that have been flops.
Like the Oscar nominations, it's easy to argue and dismiss the EW list. Also like the Oscar nominations for Best Picture or Best Director, each one of us can compile his or her list and complain about glaring omissions. Oliver Stone is very active (“W.”) but is not on the list. David Cronenberg is one of the most talented and accomplished directors around, but is missing in action, even though his last two pictures, “A History of Violence” and “Eastern Promises,” were good and commercial.
Glaring Omissions:
Gus Van Sant has just received his second nomination for directing “Milk,” but apparently he is not worthy to be on EW's list.
I also can't help but notice that there are no women or African American on the list, which may be justified but indicates the dismal position of women in both the indie world and mainstream Hollywood. Furthermore, brilliant directors of non-fictional fare, such as Werner Herzog (“Encounters at the End of the World”) are also not included.
All-American:
What about foreign filmmakers Shouldn't they be included on the list The only one included is Spaniard Pedro Almodovar (“Volver”).
Discrimination Against Age:
The follies of constructing such lists leads to placing Tarantino (number 6) above Clint Eastwood (number 17), even though he has not made a movie in years (so much for being active), whereas Eastwood, 78, is at the top of his form, having made two films this year and in prep for this new one, a biopic-drama about Nelson Mandela starring Morgan Freeman.
Genre
Perhaps the most interesting generalization to be drswn out of such a list concenrs genre: Most of the innovative, in-demand Hollywood directors have made and continue to make their mark not in prestige genres, such as the biopic or serious dramas, but in the popular formats of the more “debnased” genres of horror, sci-fi, and actioner.
The E.W. List:
1. Steven Spielberg
2. Peter Jackson
3. Martin Scorsese
4. Christopher Nolan
5. Steven Soderbergh
6. Ridley Scott
7. Quentin Tarantino
8. Michael Mann
9. James Cameron
10. Joel and Ethan Coen
11. Guillermo del Toro
12. David Fincher
13. Tim Burton
14. Judd Apatow
15. Sam Raimi
16. Zack Snyder
17. Darren Aronofsky
18. Danny Boyle
19. Clint Eastwood
20. Ron Howard
21. Ang Lee
22. Paul Thomas Anderson
23. Paul Greengrass
24. Pedro Almodovar
25. Jon Favreau