Film directors and my favourite films by them

Updated. Originally published on 12/2/2013. 
- Martin Scorsese:
Taxi driver
Mean streets
Goodfellas
The aviator
Gangs of New York
Raging bull
Alice doesn't live here any more
Cape fear
Hugo

- Stanley Kubrick: 
Eyes wide shut 
A clockwork orange
Dr Strangelove 
The killing 
Barry Lyndon 
2001: A space odyssey

- Wong Kar- wai:
2046
Chungking Express
In the mood for love
Happy together 

- Clint Eastwood:
Absolute power
True crime
Million dollar baby
Mystic river

- Zhang Yimou:
To live
Raise the red lantern
Red sorghum
Shanghai triad 

- Paul Thomas Anderson:
There will be blood
Magnolia
Boogie nights 

- Christopher Nolan:
The dark knight
The prestige
Memento

- Jim Sheridan:
My left foot
In the name of the father
Brothers

- Francis Ford Coppola:
The godfather
Tetro
The conversation 

- Charlie Chaplin:
Modern times
The great dictator
The kid
The circus
City lights

- James Cameron:
Titanic
Avatar

- Peter Jackson:
The lord of the rings trilogy
The hobbit
King Kong

- Steven Spielberg:
Lincoln
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Catch me if you can

- Ethan and Joel Coen:
No country for old men 
Burn after reading
True grit
The big Lebowski
Fargo

- Darren Aronofsky:
Black swan
Requiem for a dream

- Tim Burton:
Edward Scissorhands
Corpse bride
The nightmare before Christmas

- David Fincher:
The curious case of Benjamin Button
The girl with the dragon tattoo
The social network

- Elia Kazan:
A streetcar named Desire
East of Eden

- Chen Kaige:
Together
Farewell my concubine

- Roman Polanski:
The pianist
Knife in the water
Oliver Twist

- Sam Mendes:
American beauty
Road to perdition
Skyfall

- Pedro Almodovar:
Talk to her
Women on the verge of a nervous breakdown
All about my mother

- Francois Truffaut:
Day for night
The last metro

- Ang Lee:
Life of Pi
Brokeback mountain

- George Cukor:
Gone with the wind
Gaslight
The Philadelphia story

- Brian de Palma:
Scarface
Carlito's way

- David O. Russell: 
The fighter 
Silver linings playbook

- Sidney Lumet: 
Dog day afternoon 
Before the devil knows you're dead 
Network 

- Bong Joon-ho: 
Mother 
Memories of a murder

- Woody Allen: 
Play it again, Sam 
Midnight in Paris 

- Alfred Hitchcock: 
The trouble with Harry 
Psycho 

- Frank Darabont: 
The green mile 
Shawshank redemption 


Further notes: 
In many cases here, the reason I only like a couple of a director's films may be because I have not seen many by him and perhaps have not seen most of his acclaimed films. Eg: Hitchcock, Brian de Palma, Elia Kazan, Woody Allen, Ang Lee, Francois Truffaut...
In some cases, it's because their films aren't really my type. Eg: James Cameron, Steven Spielberg... I'm not interested in action and sci-fi films in general. 
By Elia Kazan I've seen only 2 films. I like both.  
I haven't seen anything by George Lucas. 
By Luis Bunuel, I have watched "That obscure object of desire", "Belle de jour" and "Tristana". I don't really like any of them. "Belle de jour" is the one I like better than the others, but Catherine Deneuve is the imperfection of that film. "That obscure object of desire" is interesting. 
I haven't seen anything by Orson Welles. 
By Bernardo Bertolucci, I have watched and kinda like "Last tango in Paris". Did see "The dreamers" but stopped in the middle. But I do somehow find myself in the characters in it. The name "The dreamer" a few times used for my blog came from it. 
I acknowledge Quentin Tarantino's talent, especially his use of music and the cinematography of his films, the camera angles. I like "Inglourious basterds" and the 1st half of "Django unchained". His films in general aren't my type, or at least that's the impression I've got. Will see more.
By David Lynch I have only seen "Blue velvet". It's OK. 
By David Lean I have only seen "Doctor Zhivago", which is quite a disappointment because it isn't like how I imagined reading the book. But I have no opinion of him yet, for I haven't seen "Lawrence of Arabia" and "The bridge on the river Kwai". 
I haven't seen anything by Fritz Lang. 
By Lars von Trier I haven't seen much. The whole of "Dancer in the dark", which I like. "Melancholia", which I consider messy. A bit of "Breaking the waves", a bit of "The idiots", a bit of "Dogville", a bit of "Antichrist". No opinion, but there's a slight negative prejudice because he likes to have unsimulated sex scenes in his films. 
Kim Ki Duk in my opinion is a kind of M. Night Shyamalan. "Spring, summer, autumn, winter... and spring" is a masterpiece, a true work of art, very zen and very poetic. I do not like "Dream". "The bow" is rather silly and "Pieta" is a shockingly illogical and sick film. 
By Oliver Stone, I've watched the 2 "Wall Street" films. The 1st one is very good. I refuse to watch anything else because of his political view. 
I believe I haven't seen anything by Ingmar Bergman. 
By Akira Kurosawa, I have watched only 1 film- "Ran". A masterpiece.
I think Terrence Malick's overrated. Above, when I say about some film directors that their films aren't my type, it can be understood that I may not like their films because of a lack of interest in action and sci-fi films or a difference of taste, but I do acknowledge their talent, such as the cases of James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino... Terrence Malick I consider overrated, after watching "The tree of life" and "To the wonder". 
I haven't seen much by Chen Kaige and Ang Lee. But enough to find Ang Lee talented.
I love Zhang Yimou in his old days- before "Hero". Some of his films were masterpieces, "Raise the red lantern" and "To live" for instance. In the recent years he has sold his soul to the CCP. Which is painful, he used to be my no.1 favourite director. And now in spite of my contempt for his political attitude, my acknowledgment and admiration remain the same- Zhang Yimou's 1 of the rare geniuses of Asian cinema.
By Jean-Luc Godard, I like "Vivre sa vie". 
Some people prefer directors who keep experimenting and trying to push the limits of cinema or who make (so-called) artfilms or at least visually beautiful films. I pay more attention to the content, the story, the human aspect. That's why I love Clint Eastwood and Sidney Lumet though there's nothing remarkable in the techniques (cinematography, visual effects, camera angles...). 
Wong Kar-wai still has a special place in my heart, 1st because he was the 1st person who put 'that idea' into my head (which I won't reveal), 2nd because of the cinematography of his films, 3rd because he's the best at dealing with melancholy and nostalgia and a sense of lost and disorientation. I confess, however, that I don't like him as much as before. Wong Kar-wai is known to direct films without a screenplay, even without a detailed plot- he makes things up as he goes along with the making of the film. I do not condemn his way of working, but its disadvantage is that it's only suitable of only 1 type of films, the 1 type he's best at. "2046", "In the mood for love", "Chungking Express", "Happy together" and "Days of being wild" all have that very Wong Kar-wai atmosphere, the characters are melancholic and nostalgic and lonely and dreamy and sort of stuck and uncertain of the future, etc. With such trademarks, his films are quite easy to recognise. When he tries his hand at something else, eg, a different genre- wuxia film "Ashes of time", a different group of people- "As tears go by" deals with gangsters (influenced by "Mean streets") or a different country- "Blueberry nights" is set in the US with American and English characters, he doesn't succeed. In his 'comfort zone', he's original and great and better than most directors. His strength is there and nowhere else. Which is why I hesitate to check out "The grandmasters". Therefore the discovery of Stanley Kubrick obviously changes my perception of Wong Kar-wai. On 1 hand I believe one must be in the right mood for his films and perhaps that's why I stopped watching "Fallen angels", on the other hand I'm afraid one may grow bored with him after a while, especially after watching most of his films. In some ways Wong Kar-wai is very similar to Haruki Murakami, and in his films one can always hear 'his voice' speaking. 
The 2 film directors I love most at the moment are Stanley Kubrick and Martin Scorsese. 
Who more? That's a difficult question. With Stanley, I love 5 out of 7. With Marty, I love 9 out of 13. Marty's much more prolific. This comparison can be seen in 2 ways. In the 1st way, I personally can't say whether I prefer Stanley Kubrick or Martin Scorsese because they both are masters, both have never made a truly bad film, and both are inspiring, but they are very different. Marty's films are more realistic and may be more touching on an emotional level, especially "Raging bull" and "Taxi driver" and "The aviator" and "Alice doesn't live here any more", while Stanley's films are full of symbols and more thought-provoking. Visually the films by both are beautiful.
Objectively, however, Stanley Kubrick's greater than Martin Scorsese in talent. 1st, his films can be interpreted in multiple ways by different people or by the same person at different times. 2nd, he makes films and good films of various genres- "Dr Strangelove" is political satire, "The shining" is horror/ thriller, "2001: a space odyssey" is sci-fi, "A clockwork orange" is dystopian, "Barry Lyndon" is period drama, "The killing" is film noir/ heist film, "Lolita" is drama with a bit of comedy, "Eyes wide shut" is drama with a bit of suspense/ thriller, "Spartacus" is historical epic, "Full metal jacket" is war film, etc. 3rd, while Stanley Kubrich's a true auteur, at the same time his films are extremely different when placed beside each other as though they're not made by the same person. 
(Check this out: http://whatculture.com/film/50-reasons-why-stanley-kubrick-is-the-greatest-director-of-all-time.php)
And that is rare, very rare. 
Stanley Kubrick inspires and intimidates at the same time. 

[This "further notes", as I now look back, is more like a confession and a self-reminder. 1st, I'm determined to find something by Orson Welles. I've postponed "Citizen Kane" for too long.]

Symbols in "Eyes wide shut"

Ritual scene from the film:


http://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hidden-and-not-so-hidden-messages-in-stanley-kubriks-eyes-wide-shut-pt-i/
http://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hidden-and-not-so-hidden-messages-in-stanley-kubricks-eyes-wide-shut-pt-ii/
http://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hidden-and-not-so-hidden-messages-in-stanley-kubricks-eyes-wide-shut-pt-iii/

I feel quite overwhelmed, after reading so many analyses of this film and "A clockwork orange".
There may be things that have been overlooked, such as some meaning behind all the masks (which are unlikely to be random), or some connection between the men at the Rainbow store and people in the orgy, or the identities of the 2 people who nod with Bill, or how people there know Bill is an outsider, or why Alice places the mask on the pillow and what she thinks about it and why she tells him about the dream, blah blah, but these are 3 very interesting, thorough and detailed pieces nevertheless.

"A clockwork orange" designs

Source: google. 

"A clockwork orange" film analysis (with Rob Ager)

Would the Ludovico Technique actually work? 
Or, rather, does it work on Alex? 
This guy Rob Ager offers his view here: 
http://www.collativelearning.com/ACO%20chapter%2010%20.html
And here, talking of Alex's deceit: 
http://www.collativelearning.com/ACO%20chapter%2011%20.html
I personally think it does work on Alex- whether or not it's realistic is not the point. 
1/ Alex isn't turned into a nice, good-hearted person, nor meant to be, after the treatment. That's why he behaves quite aggressively when returning home and has the urge to hit Joe, and only when he puts up his wrist, does he feel the sickness. All the treatment does is to make him have a reaction when he's about to hit somebody. Which means he has no moral choice. Which means it's all the reaction of the body. 
2/ Alex may be putting on an act when seeing his parents and Joe after his release, but pretending to endure being beaten by the gang of beggars would be difficult for a violent, aggressive, hateful, antisocial person like him. 
3/ Alex doesn't have an aversion to all music- this is 1 of the differences between the film and the book. Hence, he can sing "Singing in the rain" in the bathtub and feel OK about it even though he used to sing it while attacking the writer and raping his wife. On 1 hand it may be seen that "Singing in the rain" can be associated with violence as much as Beethoven's 9th symphony. On the other hand one can say that only the 9th symphony is played during the treatment and therefore his brain only connect the nausea with the 9th symphony. 
4/ Alex seems to have a natural reaction to the 9th symphony. As a matter of fact, he jumps off the building. Of course, one can say nobody dies jumping from such height (and Alex knows he will not), but still, it does hurt. His reaction seems natural enough. 
However, Rob Ager does have a point. His arguments are certainly interesting, and to me this is quite unsettling, because of the sense of uncertainty. 


_________________________________________________________


Another article by Rob Ager on the symbol ∆ in the film: 
http://www.collativelearning.com/ACO%20chapter%2012%20.html
I did not notice this at all. 
Some of the examples presented may be accidental- resulting from one-point perspective, which Stanley Kubrick often used. But some of them can't be. Such as: 












However, Rob Ager suggests Maslow's hierarchy of needs: 


I myself would suggest something like the pyramid of social classes in feudal society:


Or just a random pyramid of social classes: 

The question is why. 
I agree, there's hardly a sense of class in "A clockwork orange", but the main idea is that the "abuser" is at the top. Now, look back at the film- in these scenes the abuser's at the apex of the pyramid figure: 








Also, look at the structure of the writer's house. When Alex and his friends enter the house and attack the couple, they emerge from the apex. 


Later, the writer and his friends, who will 'abuse' Alex, also emerge from the apex. 

This is particularly significant. 

The pyramid also appears in the posters: 





Now, this can't be accidental. See? 

How about this? 

Now this is more interesting.

Everybody remembers his right eye and the false eyelashes: 

And his eyeball cufflinks: 


What is this supposed to mean? 
Rob Ager discusses the symbol of the eye here: 
http://www.collativelearning.com/ACO%20chapter%2014%20.html


_________________________________________________________


"A clockwork orange" may be seen as referring to Nazi society. I did notice that Chief Officer Barnes looked like a Nazi. He exaggerates movements and shouts everything and marches like a Nazi. Rob Ager argues for it here: 
http://www.collativelearning.com/ACO%20chapter%2017%20.html
All the important points and arguments are included there, I think, except 1 crucial point- the Ludovico treatment reminds me of eugenics and the concept of a master race in Nazism, the 'removal' of inadequate/ inferior people and the attempt to create a society of 'ideal' Nordic people who look the same, who think the same, who act the same. 

At the same time, it may also be referring to Soviet society. Alex's slang has heavy Russian influence and the painting in Alex's house seems to have socialist style: 

Obviously, there's also brainwashing in the USSR and the communists also want everybody to think the same and act the same (and at some point, to look the same as well, as they dressed pretty much the same). The way the writer talks, which may be overlooked by many people, sounds very socialist (eg, he keeps calling Alex the victim of the technique, the victim of modern age, etc). The red armband also exists in communist countries- remember sao đỏ? 



So it can be both. Kubrick himself said: "The Minister, played by Anthony Sharp, is clearly a figure of the Right. The writer, Patrick Magee, is a lunatic of the Left... They differ only in their dogma. Their means and ends are hardly distinguishable." 



_________________________________________________________


http://www.collativelearning.com/ACO%20chapter%2007%20.html
Here in this chapter Rob Ager discusses "an eye for an eye" in the film. Tons of examples, indeed. 


_________________________________________________________


http://www.collativelearning.com/ACO%20chapter%2018%20.html
Some of the points here are a bit too far-fetched, too forced, about which I don't have an opinion, except: 
1/ The spaghetti meat on Alex's face does look like Hitler's moustache: 

2/ The idea of double isn't entirely implausible. Whatever the case it's interesting to point out the repetitions and parallels and the placement of the mirror. 



_________________________________________________________


http://www.collativelearning.com/ACO%20chapter%2009%20.html


See the similarity? 
That chapter is about symbols of sexual abuse, this one is about hints of homosexuality: 
http://www.collativelearning.com/ACO%20chapter%2008%20.html

Obviously, Stanley Kubrick films aren't meant to be watched once, but many times. Pay attention to the details. I only see things on the surface. 





There's more to be discussed. But I think that's enough for the day. 
STANLEY KUBRICK'S AWESOME! 

On Stanley Kubrick

As it turns out, I do now like Stanley Kubrick and recognise his talent. 
"The shining", as written before, is not a good film. To do it justice, I should say it's a very interesting film, with good cinematography and some very impressive scenes (especially the scene in which Jack's wife enters the room and discovers the sheets of paper and realises what he has been doing the whole time) and a puzzling, thought-provoking ending, but the characterisation of Jack and Jack Nicholson's acting ruin it. 
"Lolita" is not a good film either. I have written a very long article called "Lolita: from Vladimir Nabokov to Stanley Kubrick"- it's not that I have lots of expectations and demands for an adaptation of Nabokov's masterpiece, but objectively the 1962 "Lolita" is not a good adaptation, the film is unsuccessful 1st because of the casting (Lolita and Humbert Humbert), 2nd because of the changes to the characterisation and the plot so that the story is much toned down and becomes average. 
However, I fortunately have watched 4 other Stanley Kubrick films. 
"Barry Lyndon" is 1 of the most beautiful films ever made. What I find most interesting is how the beauty of scenery, of landscape, of costumes, of cinematography, stands in contrast to the ugliness of human nature. 
"The killing" is undoubtedly in the list of my favourite heist-gone-wrong films. Meticulously planned to every minute detail. Its somewhat messy, confusing, back-and-forth narration reminds me of "Before the devil knows you're dead", 1 of the best films by Sidney Lumet. Right from the beginning I had a feeling that something would go wrong, and believed it would be because of Sherry, the wife of 1 of the participants, with her lover, but the ending turned out to be a huge surprise. 
When it comes to the other 2 films, "Dr Strangelove" and "Eyes wide shut", I must say they are masterpieces. It is difficult, but not impossible, for a good director to make another "Barry Lyndon" film or another "The killing" film that is as good, or nearly as good, as the ones by Stanley Kubrick, but "Dr Strangelove" and "Eyes wide shut" are impeccable and original and so impressive and strange that the idea is simply impossible. "Dr Strangelove" is, I'd say, a crazy film, crazy in a fascinating way, and arguably 1 of the best, if not the best, satire films of the century. 
The other film, "Eyes wide shut", is a dream story, and it has a dreamlike quality, thanks to the music in the background, the lighting, the movements of the camera. The audience feel as though being in a dream. While "The killing" is told in a documented style and "Barry Lyndon" has an aloof, cold, indifferent narrator and "Dr Strangelove" keeps the audience in a distance, "Eyes wide shut" makes one feel as though being in the 'dream', the story, ourselves like Bill, intrigued and interested like Bill, scared like Bill, puzzled and confused like Bill. 
"Eyes wide shut" and "Dr Strangelove" are also placed at a higher level than the other films, in my opinion, because of their symbols, their multiple layers, all the things hidden which intrigue us, which arouse our curiosity and which demand to be explored. 
Most astonishing and extraordinary of all, is the fact that even though Stanley Kubrick has a strong visual style and does have trademarks (such as primary colours, tracking shot of a character, dark humour, exploration of the dark side of human nature, etc.), at the same time, as Roger Ebert put it, "few directors seemed so determined to make every one of his films an individual, free-standing work" and Stanley Kubrick is 1 of them. Among the 6 films I have watched, no 2 films are similar and I, having considered it and tried, can't even put them in pairs. 
No 2 films are similar. 




Anyway, that's my rant. Have to see some other films by Stanley Kubrick. Must. I've seen 13 films by Martin Scorsese but only 6 by Stanley Kubrick- that's horrendous. 
Have to see other films by Akira Kurosawa. I saw one yesterday, "Ran", in class. I perhaps could not appreciate it as much as I do if I had not read "King Lear" by Shakespeare, who knows, but "Ran" is a great, great film. Long but engrossing. Akira Kurosawa improves Shakespeare. 
And Orson Welles. I have never seen any Orson Welles film. It's shocking. 

Queen Elizabeth II's fashion