The Hot Blog

I always thought of the Class of '99 as the Next Wave (and you could include '98 and '00), since I thought that was one of the best years for movies ever. You had directors like Fincher (Fight Club), PT Anderson (Magnolia), David O. Russell (Three Kings), Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich), M. Night Shymalan (The Sixth Sense), Wes Anderson (Rushmore in 98), Alexander Payne (Election), Sam Mendes (American Beauty), Aronofsky (Requiem in 2000), Sofia Coppola (Virgin Suicides in 2000), Inarittu (Amores Perros was in 2000), then you also had great films from Minghella, Kubrick, Lynch, Mann, Crowe.

I would look at that first group, though, as the next wave. But then there is a separation within that next wave. Lucas and Spielberg were different from Scorsese and Coppola but they were all part of the same wave. So I think Mendes and Shyamalan are different from those others, if you take box office into consideration. But I think the true artists are in that first group and those are the filmmakers we should be anticipating. Unfortunately, they don't work as frequently as the French filmmakers did.

I think right now we don't have as many exciting new filmmakers bursting through the door. I think 1999 was a very special year in the sense that it introduced a lot of people to the idea that there were still artists behind the camera. This was written very quickly, but these are my first thoughts on the subject.

That's a good list Noah, but wouldn't you say that several of them have been inconsistant following their signature films?

The all came out of the gate strong but it's been nearly ten years now and their follow ups, with a few exceptions haven't lived up. So what kind of staying power will they have?

Just looking for an opinion because I racked my brain and couldn't come up with a better list.

I think any discussion of the current masters has to include Kiarostami and Mike Leigh; and any discussion of the next wave ought to include Chan-Wook Park, Bong-Joon Ho, and Cristi Puiu.

The prominent filmmakers mentioned the post above all came from literary backgrounds, whether by way of their critical writings (like the Cahiers folks), reportage (Antonioni's newspaper experience) or academics (Bergman's studies in Stockholm). All of their work was informed by elements outside of the predetermined concept of movies and geared toward developing filmmaking with the refined discipline previously reserved for other art forms. So I think their successors would have to be considered similarly experimental directors whose films interrogate the nature of movies and push their boundaries. Talented craftsmen like Spielberg or any of the other movie brats are a categorically different breed. Instead, from a historical perspective, I think that the torch has already been passed to folks like Wong Kar Wai, Richard Linklater, Jim Jarmusch , PT Anderson, the Coens, and pretty much anybody else whose work is widely known for drawing on genre and other aspects of movie magic and doing something fresh with it. I suppose Tarantino belongs somewhere in there, too, and some European talent as well, although I can't think of any right off the bat.

Mike Leigh has been making films for a long time, though, so I don't know if he fits into the "next wave" group. As for Kiarosami, I don't think he's been consistent, although I do love a Taste of Cherry. I would put Arnaud Desplechin on the list of great filmmakers as well, but it's about where we draw the line whether it be chronologically or culturally, etc. There are different subsections within every section. I'm not a particularly big fan of Park and I think Bong-Joon Ho needs to make a few more films, but I'd put them both in with the current wave which includes Apatow, Fernando Merellies, etc.

Teambanzai, I think most of those filmmakers made pretty good follow-ups for the most part, but that's a matter of taste I suppose. I think we'll find out what kind of staying power they'll have when PT Anderson releases There Will Be Blood, Wes Anderson releases Darjeeling Limited, etc.

I think Banzai hinted at this, but one of the rules should be you have to WORK, to produce your art, not rest on your laurels, wait for your elusive Muse to strike, etc. You need to produce a body of work. Of the '99 class, I would say Fincher seems closest, but he's made...what, six films total? If Spielberg can make Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can in the same year, or War of the Worlds and Munich, it seems that any of the golden boys/girls of '99 should be able to generate more work...which means they ahould get even better.

By those lights, I certainly think Soderbergh belongs on the list. I care increasinly less for Wes Anderson, but at least he continues to work, though I'm not sure what's left in that vein to mine. Apatow feels like a stretch...but maybe he's our Billy Wilder in disguise. The Three Amigos seem to sally forth consistently -- I find Cuaron the most likely candidate. I like the Mike Leigh idea; I would also throw in Danny Boyle. Aronofsky feels like a fit, but it takes more than three films to do it.

Trying to think of an appropriate time line...I would think one film every 2-3 years would be the minimum.

Established modern masters not yet mentioned:

Tsai Ming-liang
Hou Hsiao-hsien (I don't connect with his work, but his craft is unimpeachable)
Michael Haneke

I said 'current masters' for Mike Leigh, not 'next wave'. And not to get off-subject, but good lord, I find Meirelles overrated.

I think the mistake is looking at it through American-centric eyes. America may have owned the so-called Blockbuster Age, but I do't think that's where the next wave is going to come from.

So many of the interesting filmmakers are Asian right now, working in all sorts of genres and with all sorts of tones. Or, if you want to take a broader view, and say that the three amigos and their co-horts are part of the vanguard, you can say that the real interesting things are appening outside of English-language films. Hell, I think Tim Roth's The War Zone was as powerful and important as any movie I've seen. Or throw in Jim Sheridan's In America.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that the foreigners are kicking our butts.

ME, I kind of agree and disagree with you. As I've said before, Asian cinema doesn't really work for me and especially right now I find it extremely derivative. However, I would say that foreign film has historically been better than the US. But I think that class of '99 are still the most exciting filmmakers, as a group. I think there are some filmmakers that are as good, but you couldn't lump them all in together because they're so vastly different.

JeffMcM, I see. Current masters, that's a whole different list that we'd have to talk about. And I'm sorry that you weren't moved at all by City of God or Constant Gardener, but I found both of them to powerful on both a visceral and emotional level, something I find lacking in Chan-wook Park's films. But, that's a matter of taste I suppose.

of course, if we go by your timeline, tuck, you are cutting out kubrick. he was a film every five years kinda guy.

FYI: On my blog posting, I repeatedly use the term "influential" while trying to distinguish (sometimes arbitarily, I admit) one group/generation from another. That is, people whose movies influence other moviemakers. This is a gross simplification, but: The Art House Elders influenced The Renaissance (of which The Blockbuster Generation, I agree, can be viewed as a subset); The Art House Elders and The Renaissance influenced the Sundance Generation; all three groups will influence -- no, scratch that, they ARE influencing The Next Wave (to again use one of David's apt labels). With that as a paradigmatic construct of... oh, geez, wait, that's too academic-speak by half. Let's just say if we use that as an initial way of organizing names and generations, then I would have to question the inclusion of some names mentioned here. Like, I would not question the talent of, say, Bong-Joon Ho -- but can he considered truly influential already?

That's true, there must therefore be a line separating the 'next wave' who've been around long enough to be influential, like David Fincher or Wes Anderson, and those who are still in the 'influenced' category, like Bong Joon-Ho or Sofia Coppola, who's still just imitating Wong Kar-Wai in a lot of ways.

The heirs were supposed to be

Soderbergh
Spike Lee
Tarantino
Rodriguez
Linklater
Kevin Smith
Paul Thomas Anderson
and a number from the big art house crop of the late 80's early 90's.

Soderbergh has crossed over and back with mixed results.

Spike Lee has just started making interesting films again.

Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood will tell us a lot where he's going.

Tarantino has never gotten out of the cinematic cuisinart he swims in. He's gotten boring. Say what you will about Death Proof (i hated it), it was boring.

Rodriguez hasn't made anything other the fluff.

Linklater, mixed results at best.

Kevin Smith.... im a fan of some of his earlier films. i find the more recent ones cartoony, but he's hardly anyone picking up and carrying the torch of filmmaking. i doubt 'zach and miri make a porno will be heralded as one for the ages.

Best filmmakers working today

Greengrass
Chanwook Park
Alfonso Cuaron

Also: Be careful about elevating people to Next Wave status on the basis of only a few films. As I wrote over at my own site: If we were having this conversation back in '74, I would be arguing that, just on the basis of Targets, The Last Picture Show and Paper Moon, Peter Bogdanovich was a major filmmaker who obviously would be an influential figure for decades to come. With all due respect to Bogdanovich, it hasn't quite worked out that way.

But aren't we talking as though this IS '74? I mean, we're speculating about who we think are going to be big voices. We're trying to figure out who the next wave is, after all. I mean, Tarantino has only made five films, which is just just as many as Wes Anderson and PT Anderson now have in the can. And you're leaving out Bogdanovich's What's Up, Doc. So, is four films not enough? And if not, then what is the cut-off?

But, there is no denying that Bogdanovich was one of the loudest and most important voices during the 70's and so, during the last ten years, we'd have to include all the filmmakers who are distinctive and important now. Perhaps in ten years they will waste their talent, but we could reasonably extrapolate that the films of David Fincher and Darren Aronofsky will still be worth seeing on opening night.

i guess that begs the question:

who is the biggest dissapointment of the modern crop?

who had all the promise and has just gone nowhere?

I can't say I'm really familiar enough with the current crop of international directors, other than some of my obvious favorites like Wong Kar Wai and Olivier Assayas.

On the American front, I love Noah's description of what he called the "Class of 1999 as the Next Wave." But a lot of those guys aren't really art house directors anymore and their films get large releases. But I guess that is what comes with success - the same way indie film is more spirit than reality a lot of times.

I think David Gordon Green and Todd Haynes might have been missed. Neither has really crossed over to mainstream and both have kept their independence.

I hesitate to pass the Godard/Truffaut mantle on to any of these young directors - not only do I not think really any of them are deserving (yet) but I also think that's a tremendous weight to carry.

But I do think the threshold for the modern pantheon is basically having made 2 great films. What is a great film? It's subjective of course. And why 2? Because that's as many as you're likely to get these days. Will we get another Hal Ashby who makes 5 or 6 great films in 10 years.

hendhogan -- Kubrick in his later years, yes, but I would argue that by then his master status was already attained. Here's his early output according to IMDB:

Barry Lyndon (1975)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
Lolita (1962)
Spartacus (1960)
Paths of Glory (1957)
The Killing (1956)
Killer's Kiss (1955)
The Seafarers (1953)
Fear and Desire (1953)
Day of the Fight (1951)
# Flying Padre (1951)

Then after Lyndon, it's five years to Shining, then another 7 to FM Jacket, then 12 to EWS.

The longest gap here is 4 years (2x), otherwise, it's every two to three years. And I would argue Kubrick "earned" his 1st 4 year gap (before 2001) based on the run of films before.

Did PT Anderson "earn" his five years between Punch Drunk and There Will Be Blood? (Insurance duty on Prairie Home Companion non-withstanding?) I guess only time will tell.

I guess the question of frequency begs the question of which you would prefer: more films or better films? If these directors don't feel particularly motivated to make a movie, I'd rather they wait until they are than make a Panic Room. I'm glad Aronofsky waited six years to make The Fountain rather than doing Batman. Not everybody can be Woody or Spike and want to make a film every year. Sure, it would be nice, but it would also make the fact that a new PT Anderson movie is coming out less of an event. It's his first film in five years! Isn't that more exciting than, "oh, another PT Anderson flick."

I thought The Fountain was an enormous disaster and don't see how waiting any amount of time to make it was worth it. And I think Aronovsky is one of the answers to who had promise and has gone nowhere? Because I do not hold Requiem in very high regard at all - I think it shows a particular lack of understanding about drug addiction, and that Ellen Burstyn's performance was a sad mockery of the brilliant once she gave in The King of Marvin Gardens back in the early 70's.

i'm confused. are we talking great or are we talking influential?

if we're talking influential, you have to include tarantino (despise him as i do). he's one of the most imitated directors of our time. for better or for worse

As to inconsistently, after an auspicious beginning of 8 or 10 films didn't Godard himself become unbelievably inconsistent? Even if he himself probably considers that a virtue?

Hendhogan: In a perfect world, we'd be talking influential and great. But I would think that, in this context, we're talking about people who make movies that, in addition to impressing critics and audiences, have influenced other moviemakers. Like, I think even if you hate -- absolutely hate -- the three Star Wars prequels, you have to put George Lucas on the list just on the basis of American Graffiti and the original Star Wars. At the other end of the spectrum: I think Francois Truffaut is the greatest filmmaker of all time. On the other hand, I don't think that means all of his movies are great. On yet another hand: He made three of the most influential movies of all time -- The 400 Blows, Jules and Jim and Day for Night. He really didn't have to do anything else to be ensured of immortality. (But I'm very glad he did.)

Carpetmuncher, I'm sorry that we disagree on The Fountain, but watching it a second time I found it to be a beautiful meditation on death and how it is a part of life.

Joe, I would say that not only 400 Blows but ALL of the Antoine Doinel movies were influential. I mean, you can see that influence in Linklater's Before Sunrise/Before Sunset movies. And I totally agree with you that he is the greatest filmmaker of all time (along with Kubrick). I think Shoot The Piano Player is also a pretty influential film as well as The Wild Child, but I suppose that's pushing it.

I think there's a strong argument to be made for Asian filmmakers taking over as the current influencers of a lof of film (in the same way that the French New Wavers slowly influenced American films to open up to new ground). Take a look at the way Woo's gunfighting style and Hong Kong wire work has completely taken over the action genre. Look at the stamp Ang Lee has put onto American cinema, from the best take on the social repression of Jane Austen's England to modern repression of gay love. From tone and themes to downright theft of styles and devices, Asian cinema is having an influence on the way films are being made.

I, too, think Shoot the Piano Player is great, as audacious a genre-scrambler and pop-culture-reprocessor as anything Tarantino has ever done. (And, mind you, I like most of Tarantino's movies.) But Noah: Go back and read some of the contemporary reviews of that film. Even some written by ususally insightful people like Stanley Kauffmann. Yikes! You'd think Truffaut had committed a crime or something.

Along those lines: It's often more than a little shocking to go back and read some contemporary reviews of movies we now consider classics. If you ever get the chance, read Time Magazine's take on Alfie (the Michael Caine version, of course). Or Variety's review of Harold and Maude.

Noah, in answer to your question: "I guess the question of frequency begs the question of which you would prefer: more films or better films?"

The answer is that I want more better films. And your answer also has a bias against genre films (which you are obviously entitled to).

But I would have love to have seen Aronofsky's Batman. I would have loved to have seen Fincher's MI3, or Fincher's The Lookout. I am as interested in Soderbergh's Che movies as I am in Bubble.

I want these guys to keep working, I want them to stretch, I want them to keep the rust off. You may have loved Zodiac, but for me it was way too long, and I suspect that had Fincher flexed a few more muscles in the five years between Panic Room and Zodiac, the result would have been a tighter, better movie. YMMV on this example, but I'm sure we could point to others.

Who knows what Soderbergh learned during Ocean's 12 that helps him make Che great? (Assuming it is.)

Even if Fincher had made what resulted in a "lesser" Fincher movie in those five years, I still maintain it would have resulted in a better Zodiac.

Joe: I agree completely that critics aren't always ahead of the times. But influence is not limited only to the few years after the films were released. I think Shoot the Piano Player still influences today, regardless of what critics think now. I wonder, though, what movies will be considered classics in thirty years that critics lambast today. 300? I hope not.

Tuck: Your points are all fair and I guess we'll never know what those films would have been like. But I would argue that if those films didn't work out, then it's clear the directors did not have an unending passion for those projects. I think it's more fun to speculate what those movies might have been. I, of course, loved Zodiac so I guess we have a difference of opinion there. But I guess what I'm saying is that the great filmmakers should wait until they are full of passion for a project before stepping behind the camera, whether that takes six months or five years.

Ang Lee seems so far from John Woo to me, it's hard to put them both under the same umbrella. Ang Lee in a way has gone beyond being an "asian filmmaker" because of his subject matter. And is he a New Yorker now? I am a huge fan of his, but THE ICE STORM is his movie I hold in the highest esteem. I consider it a masterpiece. He should certainly be on the list of great contemporary filmmakers, whatever category we stick him in.

The thing about guys like John Woo and Tarantino, as much as I like their films (at least Tarantino's first three films) I expect more from a great filmmaker - I expect the tackling of important subjects, or something that has anything to do with real life. Both guys seem more interested in camera moves and visceral thrills, which is fine, but it's also why I've lost interest in their films over time. While Tarantino had an auspicious start, I no longer consider him one of our "best" because I expect a lot more from our best. PRobably too much. Maybe it is unrealistic to expect today's filmmakers to give us the quality and humanity of films like LAST PICTURE SHOW or FIVE EASY PIECES or DELIVERANCE. But it shouldn't be. There is so muich talent out there, it would be nice to see some of it focused less on other movies and more on life.

Noah: I hear ya, dog. I guess I think that it's those filmmakers responsibility to seek out material that they are passionate about as well, or bend an interesting but flawed project to their will. I just can't believe that with all the talent at these guys' disposal, they can't find a reason to get back in the saddle more often.

Without engaging in too much dime store psychology, you also have to wonder how much these guys are hiding behind their "genius" tag a little, when they're just nervous about living up to all the hype. After all, when you've been crowned as the next big thing, that's gotta take a toll.

Carpet: "Both guys seem more interested in camera moves and visceral thrills, which is fine, but it's also why I've lost interest in their films over time."

I would agree with you on Tarantino, certainly. However, I think Woo is at least moving in a slightly more deeper direction..."Windtalkers" was not great cinema, but at least it was about something, though the result may make one inclined to think his work is best suited the exercises in style. And I think "Red Cliff" is also dealing with more substantive matters.

But I agree with you...these talented cats should be working all over the spectrum, not just showing off.

I also want more better films, and wish that like Hawks or Ford the filmmakers of today put out more films, only because I am greedy. And I do think there is a certain degree of laziness and fear that goes into not making as many films. But it's also so so difficult to get a movie made today, especially a small dangerous film, because a lot of times these films are financed by multiple companies and it take longer to finance the films than to make them. Also, once they are made, a lot of times they don't have distribution yet, and so have to seek that out...

At the same time, if Sofia or Wes Anderson wanted to make two films a year, I think they could. And in Wes' case, I think that would benefit us all, because he would be forced to direct instead of art direct, which seems to be his love, but his obsession with it has become pathological and worries me about his future films.

an interesting conversation, to be sure. a lot of names have been floated around.

but when talking of great american directors, i'm surprised no one's brought up sayles or cassavetes. both guys work/worked outside the system, making some really great films. it can be done, so why isn't it being done more often by other directors?

On the Bogdanovich tip, I was thinking of other directors of the BLOCKBUSTER/MOVIE BRAT era who would've been among the major auteurs of that day, yet have now faded into self-repetition, laziness, or unfortunate irrelevance:

John Milius, Walter Hill, John Landis, John Carpenter.

If you're really stretching it to ace craftsman who still made big or important movies of the day, John Badham. And extending it into the '80s, Rob Reiner and Barry Levinson have fallen on extremely hard times.

Of today's directors, I'd really put Alexander Payne at or near the top, as he's hit three in a row out of the park as far as I've concerned... but then maybe he's too subtle or unflashy, more of a Hal Ashby or Bob Rafelson than a Kubrick or Scorese in the pantheon ultimately.

As for mad experimentation goes, I'd put Michael Winterbottom up there with if not above Soderbergh. And I'll second Paul Greengrass, though we've yet to see if he'll ultimately lean more to Bourne popcorn than "Bloody Sunday"/"United 93."

But at this point, some of the guys being bandied about seem positively old school-- Spike Lee's been directing almost as long as Oliver Stone, who certainly isn't considered next generation, and Soderbergh seems like some sort of elder statesman. Even Fincher, Tarantino, and, say, Kevin Smith, seem to have been doing this so long it's hard to think of them as being any kind of voice of tomorrow.

I forgot about Windtalkers, and agree on the subject matter there - but I also wasn't a big fan of the film. I have not seen Red Cliff and need to check that out.

On the same note though, I hope that someone like Chris Nolan doesn't get lost in comic book land. I thought INSOMNIA was a great film and showed huge promise. But as much as people love his Batman film, in my opinion it's simply not the kind of thing a serious filmmaker spends years doing, except to get rich. And he should do that if that's what he likes. But he's talented enough to make important films, not just theme park rides and commercials for action figures.

I feel the same way about Bryan Singer, who is hugely talented, and I hope his new film shows it. This doesn't mean I didn't like X-Men. I thought the opening scene of X2 was the best use of CGI I've seen, and one of the most fabulous cinematic opening sequences I've seen in years. It was tremendous. But I think Singer's talent outweighs the material.

For me, John Woo is a much more puzzling/frustrating filmmaker than Tarantino. After the extremely guilty pleasure that HARD TARGET offered, my hopes and expectations were continually doused. FACE/OFF was giddy fun, but nonsensical trash. BROKEN ARROW, WINDTALKERS and PAYCHECK were just plain awful. Dipping backwards into his Hong Kong catalogue brings only a sigh of depression and a tinge of not-that-great-after-all retrospection.

Make that MAYBE-not-so-great. . .

carpetmuncher,

i too enjoyed "insomnia." i'm sure you know it's a remake. if not, definitely check out the original. also very good

I'd say there's as much 'seriousness' in Batman Begins as there is in Insomnia, and it shouldn't be diminished just because it happens to be a superhero movie.

Also, I think Tarantino is underrated here. There's plenty of 'real life' in most of movies his movies with the exception of the Kill Bills, which exist in a heightened universe, but if you're going to kick him out of the ranks of serious filmmakers, you have to do the same with Sergio Leone.

Lastly, in my opinion Bryan Singer's talent level is exactly at X-Men 2 levels.

"As for Kiarosami, I don't think he's been consistent, although I do love a Taste of Cherry"

Abbas Kiarostami is inconsistent?!?

Let's take a brief look at his resume:
- Where is My Freind's House?
- Close-Up
- Life and Nothing More
- Through the Olive Trees
- Taste of Cherry
- The Wind Will Carry Us

"10" is not his best, for sure, but where exactly is the inconsistency?

Noah - every director on your "class of 99" list has been less consistent than Kiarostami, who, IMHO, is one of the few people mentioned in this thread that deserve to be mentioned by last name only.

the more i think about this discussion, the more i ask myself what filmmakers have truly unique visions, films that work together as a body of work that you can watch and say 'that's a (blank) film'

a few names pop up

Wes Anderson
Paul Thomas Anderson
Stephen Soderbergh
Alphonso Innarittu
Alfonso Curaon

Patrice Leconte

Kit: I'm sorry that we disagree, but it seems that our taste is just different. I don't think you're wrong, I just disagree. I was not a fan of Through the Olive Trees or I found the Wind Will Carry Us to be tedious. I like Kiarostami a great deal, but I would rather watch the folks on my list, but that is just my opinion. I would also include Gus Van Sant, The Dardennes Brothers and Jacques Audiard.

JeffMcM, you can't say that Batman Begins is a "serious" movie in the same vein as something like Gus Van Sant's Elephant. This does not make it a bad film, but it lives in a comic book world (albeit one that is try to be more realistic, but still). Rules are different in genre films and while I think Batman Begins is a great entertainment, I wouldn't exactly call it a masterpiece. Then again, I wouldn't call Insomnia a masterpiece either. I think The Prestige does a much better job of taking a genre premise and making it into serious material, but that is just my opinion.

I did see the original INSOMNIA and am a huge Stellan Skarsgaard fan, and as much as I liked the original I actually thought Nolan gave it more depth and improved on the it, which is unusual.

I am embarrased to say that Taste of Cherry is the only Kiarostami film I have seen. I need to get me to a video store....

As for superhero movies, I do think the work in them is diminished some if not a lot because it happens to be a superhero movie. I simply don't think those films have ever shown themselves to be at the level of great cinema, mostly because they are aimed at teenage boys. Now I was a teenage boy once and still find some enjoyment in those films, but have yet to see one that I think is worthy of being called great, with the exception of Tim Burton's first Batman, which I hold in high regard. And in a discussion of the heirs of Godard and Antonioni, it's almost intellectually embarrassing to even be talking about X-Men and Batman. Or at least it should be.

As for Tarantino, I am still a huge fan, but yes the KILL BILL movies dropped him a lot in my esteem. They were technical marvels, but inane IMO, and a waste of talent. PULP FICTION is still one of my favorite films and I still think if we're judging "the talent in the room" as Norman Mailer might say, you've got to give Tarantino his dap, becuase dude's got talent coming out his ears. But when that talent is focused on stuff like KILL BILL or GRINDHOUSE, which seem just like exercises in the "I can outdo your action sequence" type, and so I lose interest. I also think JACKIE BROWN has a lot of his best work, as flawed as I found it. And Tarantino's casting touch is unimpeachable. As well as his ear for music. And usually, dialogue.

Anyway, I bitch about Quentin only because I feel like he's lost in clouds of marijuana smoke and piles of old Hong Kong movies, and I wish he'd emerge and make a film that really pushes his talents to the max. Tarantino has most of the skills to be our best, but will never be that unless he finds better subject matter, hopefully subjects that come from the real world, and not comic books or other old movies. But maybe that's all he knows about?

Christopher Nolan. Paul Greengrass.

It's hard, because most American filmgoers can't be sure they'll have the opportunity to see every new film by the most important currently active filmmakers.

As a frequent moviegoer in one of the top five or six markets, I can say that I wouldn't, under any circumstance, miss a new film by Paul Thomas Anderson, Todd Haynes, Guillermo del Toro, David O. Russell, Spike Jonze, Pedro Almodovar, Alfonso Cuaron, Alexander Payne, the obscenely underrated Nicole Holofcener, and a host of other name-brand auteurs.

But can I be sure that I'll have more than a few days' chance to catch the new Hou Hsiao-Hsien or Kiarostami on the big screen? Nope. So I'm not sure if I can answer the original question.

Get your noses out of the plex trough. It seems anyone can director a blockbuster these days... even Peter Jackson is passing off to a protege to direct one. Its not the same as the Lucas generation.

Some New Wave Influential Filmmakers

Brad Bird
Johnny To
Bruno Dumont
Von Trier
Jia Zhang-ke
Suzanne Bier
Paul Greengrass
Alfonso Cuaron
Gyorgy Palfi

tarantino had good source material for "jackie brown." hard to beat elmore leonard. and while i enjoyed "pulp fiction" i saw no insightfulness from the gimp. it was fun, but it's right there in the title, pulp.

if we're dismissing comicbook movies for lack of depth and realism, then i see no way to not throw out tarantino with the possible exception of "resevoir dogs."

big no on von trier. unless we're just discussing influential again.

Carpetmuncher: David Gordon Green just directed a Seth Rogen movie called PINEAPPLE EXPRESS. I'd say he's officially crossed over at this point. :)

Am I just picking the wrong first movies to watch from some of these directors? Nothing about THE WIND WILL CARRY US, MEMORIES OF MURDER, WHAT TIME IS IT THERE or DEMONLOVER made me necessarily want to dive into their catalogue titles. John-hoo Bong may be the exception, as I watched THE HOST at a friend's house without realizing who directed it and liked it enough (apart from the ham-handed oafishness of the anti-Americanism).

Awesome discussion...but between the new breed being mentioned and the classic, influential directors Joe mentioned, I feel like there's a huge disconnect.

I don't really feel these new guys have a personal stamp that's other than visual. I don't feel like there's anything "personal" being said. I mean, ALL those French New Wave directors had something to say. It feels like Fincher/Aronofsky/Anderson...and so on are commentating on how they feel about movies rather than how they feel about life or society or....sexuality...or anything.

Of course, this doesn't make the newer director "bad"..I just feel like it's apples and oranges comparing them to filmmakers who were willing to leave a little piece of their soul on the screen.

entertaining blocbuster fare--there's a number of American directors who I think can fill those shoes but

If we are talking about fine drama, high art...wow. i realized there's almost no one American who i feel has an undeniable stamp...well a quality stamp anyway, except for the Coens and Lynch (I am sure I'll think of others after I calm down about the bridge collapse...that my brother just missed).

Other 'younger' people who I think have made a memorable catalog as well as pictures that are actually good and/or entertaining and/or:

Takeshi Kitano
Alejandro Amenábar
rolf de heer
wim wenders
Chantal ackerman
Pedro Almodóvar
David Cronenberg
Hirokazu Koreeda
and big Up to Boam’s Doctor for mentioning Johnnie To

65+ some still alive, some still doing decent filmmaking to add to Joe's list of arty oldies:
Agnès Varda, Jacques Rivette, and my favorite Jules Dassin

and hats off to Ousmane Sembene who was a fine filmmaker of Africa who died recently.

I'm glad people remember to add Asian directors. May I suggest a Thai director - Pen-ek Ratanaruang. He directed 6ixty-nin9 (original title means 'Funny Story about 6 and 9'), Last Life in the Universe, Monrak Transistor, Invisible Wave (this one was quite bad), and his latest is called 'Ploy'. I missed it in theaters but will definitely see it on DVD.

If we're talking influential, I think it's only fair that we add the Asian directors of horror films that were remade in Hollywood. They have influenced how horror movies are made there.

I tried to figure out a list of heirs, but there isn't really anybody who started in the last 15 years that deserves serious consideration. Lots of great directors, lots of great movies, but a Kurosawa or a Miyazaki or a Bergman or a Fellini? No. Just not enough from any one director in the last 15 years.

But one possibly strange choice from the last 15 that I'd like to put up for discussion is writer/producer David Simon for what he's brought to television - from "Homicide: Life on the Streets" through "The Corner" mini-series, to the four years of his HBO series, "The Wire". That's at least one American filmmaker who's seriously delving into real life stories with depth AND breadth whose work will probably gain even more estime and respect as the decades roll on.

From people around the age of people we are talking about, here are my favorites:

Alfonso Cuarón has the most distinguishable style of any newish director, without being too distracting. He seems to focus in on giving his films a realistic perspective, regardless of genre. In a way he is like Speilberg (covering many of the same themes and motifs in every picture), but much more visually talented. Besides Harry Potter, he hasn't found real box office success though. Looking at his current slate, I doubt his films will make much money, but they should be good. A History of Love is the most beautiful book in years, and if anyone besides Fernando Meirelles can translate it to film, he can.

Fernando Meirelles has only released two films you can easily get a hold of in America, but what a pair. I think The Constant Gardener is the best translation of a post-modern novel to the screen since Boyle did Transpotting. He gives you gaps in the narrative, allows you to assume things, and then changes your perspective with Ralph Fiennes's.

PTA seems as influenced by Scorsese and Altman as Tarantino is by B movies. What I liked about Punch Drunk Love is that he showed he can successfully pull off a picture without such a large cast of talented actors. Granted, it wasn't as great as Boogie Nights or Magnolia, and he still had Emma Watson and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, but it is an interesting character study. There Will Be Blood could be a masterpiece, and we hopefully will not have to wait five years for his next film. Still, I doubt he will be as influential as either Cuaron or Meirelles, just because he doesn't really do anything new visually.

Also from this age group, I love Alexendar Payne, Wes Anderson, Chris Nolan, and Brad Bird. Granted, most of these names seem to directors who started around 1995 at the earliest, but that seems to be where the discussion was heading. Noah Baumbach delivered one of my favorite films ever with the Squid and the Whale, and cannot wait to see what he does next. Hopefully it won't be a decade before he finds himself again, like after Kicking and Screaming.

As for who has not lived up to the promise from this list of heirs:

Soderbergh
Spike Lee
Tarantino
Rodriguez
Kevin Smith

I think maybe all of them.

Soderbergh: I liked Ocean's 13, but its been far too long since Traffic.

Lee: Do The Right Thing is still ahead of its time visually, and I love the epic feel of Malcolm X, still, it has been awhile. The Inside Man was a good flick, which might have been less then average without his involvement. (Plus, I doubt they get Clive, Denzel, and Jodie Foster without Lee). He definitely gets a lot from his actors in the flick, and it's still eye candy, without being extreme.

I don't think Tarantino can live up to the potential/hype, because it is impossible. For him to be as good as he was pumped up to be, he'd have to be twice the direct Scorsese is. I enjoy all of his films, and think Kill Bill is closer in quality to his first two flicks then others say. Still, just the excitement of what he can do will only leave people wanting more.

If you are talking about influential, look no further than Rodriguez. On one hand, I only really think two of his films are great and two are good, but what he did with Sin City will continue to influence the films we see today and the next 20 years. He showed how to achieve real style with digital backgrounds and photography, and his panel to screen adaption of the comics will be heavily used as we see more and more brought to the big screen. Really though, I am not sure what people really expected from him to begin with. He does big and overblown, and sometimes it works and sometimes it misses.

I think Smith lived up to the potential he showed in Clerks. It's not like anything he did after should have been expected to break ground, and it hasn't. I think Jersey Girl offers one of the most realistic parent-child relationships that I've seen, and I connect with his films. I understand the criticism he gets, but he has a fan base that seems to get him as well as he gets them. Really, the dialogue we get in the 40 Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and Superbad is the same as we get in Smith's movies, without the Mamet-level rhythm and style he writes. (I love that Apatow branch trio, btw). Him and Jason Lee need to team up again though. It would give Smith the actor who best suits his work and Lee the material he excels with. Plus it would spare us from a possible Hong Kung Fu-ey movie. Oh, and Smith can craft stories better than most. I can't imagine many directors being able to entertain for over four hours just by talking (though I would love to get to hear Tarantino do it after watching him discuss Deniro).

I'd put Joe Wright out there as a very real potential to be exactly what Dave is describing. on the basis of Atonement alone he's worth considering, and when I consider the quality of Pride and Prejudice (even if I wasn't crazy about the film) well, I can't wait to see his next film.

Part of the problem with this sort of question is the continual reduction into auteurist theory and body-of-work fetishism. I remember back in film school I had to read an essay that spoke in all seriousness that Hawks was a great auteur because all his movies could be consistently be boiled down into one idea or unifying theme--male-bonding. The point of comparison was William Wyler, who, it was claimed, could never be considered an artist because there was no easy to grasp unifying theme concept that connected all his films to one another. God forbid a critic have to do so much hard work as consider each film it's own individual entity. God forbid an artist actually embrace variety.

So in a sense what I'm arguing is that the whole way we look at the idea of artistic vision is fundamentally flawed. And that one of the things that has limited the filmmakers of today is knowing too much of how the system of analysis works, knowing that everything will be scruntinized and compared and questioned in a very specific way to decide whether or not this is an Anderson film or a Fincher film. In other words I think some young filmmakers have become so caught up in giving their work a distinct style and voice and trying to make every second a masterpiece that they've become completely overwhelmed and can't produce films more quickly.

It also might explain why so many of those filmmakers' follow up movies leave me completely cold. They feel calculated, almost sterile. finely crafted, but empty; they've been completely overthought. I think the lesson that allowed artists like Hawks, Wyler, Wilder, Ford, Truffaut, Bergman , Kubrick, Kurasawa, Scorsese and Spielberg (etc) to endure and produce so many masterpieces and have so many different phases of productive careers was that greatness is ultimately a transitory experience that is something of the moment--an archetype and mythology that we, the audience at large, demand and create--as much as it is any objective criterion. This very conversation is a sort of proof of how we require a mythology of greatness as some odd, fundamental part of our worldview. I think the artists I mentioned knew they couldn't create greatness because it was never something that they could build into their films, They just did their best, let their art and craft and heart and soul out for the public to see and if it hit said the right thing, in the right country in the right era, suddenly greatness was thrust upon them. But trying to manufacture greatness or masterpieces will always be a losing game--that I think is the problem with a lot of the artists mentioned on this thread. They've already recieved the label 'great' and they feel everything they do afterwards has to live up to that label and any misstep means The End to their career.

Whoever told you that all of Hawks' films were about 'male bonding' didn't know what they were talking about, since that concept ignores Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, The Big Sleep, and Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, among others.

Noah, I wasn't comparing Batman Begins to Elephant, I was comparing it to Nolan's Insomnia; Christopher Nolan has never made an 'art movie', all five of his films have been pop thrillers of varying scale.

I love Kiarostami, but I'd also call him 'inconsistent' merely because I loved Where is the Friend's House, Life and Nothing More, The Wind Will Carry Us, and Ten, but I disliked Taste of Cherry and Through the Olive Trees - the movies where he got overly self-conscious, I thought.

If we are talking successors to Bergman, I think the two most obvious to me are the previously mentioned Mike Leigh (although he has slowed down his rate of film recently) who, as Bergman performed plays with his actors prior to filming, spends a long time rehearsing/inventing characters with his actors before he writes/films his next project. The other is (was) Kieslowski who, also prolific, wrote films that seemed to say something profound about the human condition. Watching "Red" or any of the Decalogue, I always feel that I am learning something new about the human soul.

I think, of all Nolan's films, that The Prestige puts him some way along the Hitchcock path. That opening five minutes--with the top hats, the little girl, the bird, the magic trick, etc.-- gain so many layers of meaning upon subsequent viewings. Revenge, Death, Resurrection, Redemption. Mmmmmm...masterful pop thriller resplendent with imagery.

I personally find Tarantino to be one of the very best filmmakers working today. The main criticism levelled at him is always "when is he going to stop making these B-movie pastiches and start making IMPORTANT films about REAL issues"

When did he ever and why should he have to?

Why is there not room for a filmmaker who simply makes Style-As-Substance films? A visual director who simply revels in the movement, the sound and the dialogue. He doesn't make any sort of unified statement with his films, he simply makes collages, piecing together disparate elements that (for me) usually generate a new take or a new perspective on an old concept. Your mileage may vary of course, but I find his films to be not only extremely fun, entertaining and well made, but also exciting and fresh. I leave the "important" films about "real" issues to other filmmakers. I suspect that Tarantino will be watched when a great deal of other more "serious" filmmakers are forgotten.

For me, the cream of the crop working today, who I see as likely to make an impact on future filmmakers are in random order:

Chan-Wook Park
Christopher Nolan
Quentin Tarantino
Joon Ho-Bong
Craig Brewer
Pen-Ek Ratanaruang
Darren Aronofsky (The Fountain is my favorite movie of the year so far)
Sofia Coppola

And two guys I have not seen mentioned yet:
Tom Tykwer
Kim Ki-Duk

I would also put in Michael Haneke, but the guy is 65 years old already and I also need one more film from Paul Thomas Anderson before I'm ready to include him.

I'm sure I'm forgetting some names.

I would argue that, as a body of work, the most interesting work these days is being done on television. Furthermore, television is primarily a writer-driven medium and not a director-driven medium.

Which is to say that in my opinion the "Next Wave" really only makes sense in context of talking about people like David Milch, JJ Abrams, Joss Whedon, possibly Ricky Gervais, etc etc. (Feel free to expand that list dramatically)

The "Next Next Wave" will of course be primarily YouTube based... :-)

Thrice -- while your list is your list, it seems inconsistent to me that you place Craig Brewer on there with only two movies (and Black Snake Moan is of highly debatable merit, I would say) and yet, you still need to see something from Anderson? I would think Boogie Nights and Magnolia alone would get gain him entry to ThriceLand...

Seems that everyone has their own taste. Some duplication from list to list but over all they cover the entire spectrum of film making. What I would love to know is it seems most people seem to like the directors in their list so much they would watch them direct traffic, is there anyone that the love has left due to a major disapointment or would you drop one from your list if they directed the sequel to Joe Dirt?

the new wave of just recently proven or still-on-the-rise filmmakers:

Aronofsky
Nolan
Cuaron
Del Toro
Chan-wook
Tykwer
Gondry
Amenábar
Meirelles
and two names I haven't seen mentioned here so far, Todd Field and Andrew Niccol (if only for Gattaca).

Fincher, PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, Tarantino, Soderbergh and even Spike Jonez are already established contemporary filmmakers with certain influence and prestige.

I'm not the most consistent guy ever.

I don't know what to tell you. Coppola and Brewer bowled me over with their respective movies (seen BSM three times now in 3 weeks), while PTA's Magnolia doesn't age all that well for me. Boogie Nights on the other hand is brilliant, and I quite like Punch-Drunk Love as well. I'm extremely looking forward to And There Will Be Blood, which I'm hoping will cement PTA in my mind as a great director.

In five years time, I may discover that Black Snake Moan and Lost in Translation age badly, at which time I'll revise my estimate of Brewer and Coppola. The list simply represents what's going through my head at this moment in time, and is not meant to be any sort of manifest.

And of course both Cuaron and Del Toro should have been on my list, goddamn it.

Actually Brewer does have three features to his credit.

http://www.filmthreat.com/index.php?section=reviews&Id=1344

While making lists like these can often be fun and serve as a barometer for current tastes, they ultimately don't mean much in terms of predicting future output. There really are very few filmmakers from any given generation who have what it takes to maintain a long and successful career. It's not just about talent, but adaptability.

I'd be very cautious about making any predictions at this stage for the simple fact that we're currently heading toward midnight in a long-gestating transition. Five years from now the distribution and production of movies will be significantly different. Right now is the testing phase for the new digital distribution means -- downloads, VOD, etc. Meanwhile, more theaters are adopting digital projection and more features are being shot digitally (and, of course, we shouldn't forget digital animation, which only sees celluloid during the theatrical run).

Five years from now, these new distribution systems will be relatively standardized. Furthermore, most motion pictures will be photographed digitally. Now, I know this last assertion may piss off some people, but it's not a personal preference just a statement of fact. There will come a point within 5 years where it is simply not financially beneficial for Kodak and the others to continue producing celluloid at mass quantities anymore. It's simple economics.

So, not only will this modern crop of filmmakers have to contend with the realities of trying to make good movies and remain financially viable, but they're also going to have to deal with a massive shift around the corner in the medium itself. And that shift won't just be about technology in and of itself -- technological shifts invariably alter what's capable and in doing so affect everything from ideas to aesthetics.

We shall see...

to mutinyco: yes but the filmmakers listed, at least the ones i listed, are listed because of their talent as storytellers and at crafting inspired and compelling films not exactly because of the very tools at work. I understand the digital takeover in filmmaking and don't exactly refute it (thanks to Zodiac, Inland Empire, and Miami Vice) but while the distribution and making of the film will change or evolve that in no way should mean that the current wave of inspired filmmakers will in someway lose credibility or inspiration with that transition. Adaptability is certain since the new digital formats add time, lower production costs, and give way to new possibilities with cinematography.

I am also a PT Anderson fan but found MAGNOLIA awful when it came out (except for the frogs which I thought were fabulous) and still think the film is a total mess. But I still hold him in high esteem for Boogie Nights & Punch-Drunk Love, as well as Hard Eight. With high hopes for OIL!

ThriceDamned, which of Ratanaruang's films is your favorite? Did you get to see his first film, Fun Bar Karaoke? I'm glad people know about him.

Last Life in the Universe is my favorite, and I think it's a magnificent film. I also love 6ixtynin9 and Transistor Love Story to bits. I haven't seen Fun Bar Karaoke yet, but I plan to.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)