He only Comic Book Director that is actually remembered and loved is James Gunn. Guardians 3 poster is one of the few that has A James Gunn Film. Other than that no one cares who directed the films lol.
@Pietje_Piraat Then why not try making a movie without one? The best directors leave a stamp that says a movie was made with a unifying vision, a single sensibility tying it all together.
L take. You need a unifying voice and vision to pull all the strings. Sure there are happy accidents but that’s like throwing a bunch of ingredients in a bowl without a recipe.
Um...well they're not important if you mean the likes of Zach Snyder, Brett Ratner or most superhero movie directors, i.e, director-for-hire or hacks. Directors with clear visions: (the late) David Lynch, Christopher Nolan, Robert Eggers, Sofia Coppola, Wes Anderson...are immensely important. Their stuff almost always stands out from the dreck.
@@jameslight4391quality isnt the concern here, but instead the question of whether there are auteur sensibilities. Suckerpunch is stupid, scriptwise, but i can recognize its a zack snyder movie. Most directors dont pit any stamp on their work because they dont have a vision or else the studio wont let them. We dont know which it is.
Film is in decline. It guts me but I think history will see it as mostly a 20th century art form. Imagine a bell curve on a timeline with the zenith being in the mid seventies. It's fitting that the last rock star director, Tarantino, has his entire filmography recreating the feeling of the 70s cinema he grew up with.
I hate that you may be right, but I see the same signs. Though I don't think it will ever totally go away, because studios will keep making big budget event films and people will still see them in droves, because people will always want to go out and see something (just like they will always want to go to bars, clubs, concerts, etc). I think the more artistic stuff will become more niche though, sadly.
@@bbrother92 there are good movies still coming out this guys problem (the video) is that they are not the bestselling. They don't always have to be there are lots of good movies that are not the best selling and people still like them
Hollywood adapts, it never changes. Just watch that scene in Robert Altman’s “The Player” where the Peter Gallagher character explains why they don’t need screenwriters and think about what they’ve been doing with AI now some 30 years after that movie.
You strained hard to not mention Nolan, as though you feared he ruined the point of your video. You could have just argued he's the exception that proves the rule.
I'm aware of Nolan, yes. I excluded him for a reason. I'd argue that while Nolan is a singular director, his tastes align with studio thinking. He makes the movies they want to make (big event films), so that's why he gets funding... Nolan only became famous because of the batman movies. He was not a household name after Memento. That's why I excluded him, as this was more about directors who's visions are unique and too far out of the studios' playbook to become culturally significant. If you remember, at the end of this video I said the public's thinking aligns with studio/corporate thinking, hence Nolan, the director of comic book movies (studio content) is in the public consciousness. That didn't happen after he made Memento and Insomnia, it happened after he made Batman. Nolan is famous because Batman is famous, and while he was able to make those movies his own, he still would not be who he is without those big budget comic book movies.
@@cine-mechanic8589 - It's definitely fair to say the Dark Knight trilogy made his name, but it was the Nolan Brand that sold Inception and Interstellar (Tenet would have been a bigger deal if not for Covid) like they did. Oppenheimer is a muddier affair because of the whole Barbenheimer thing, which no one could have predicted. I feel safe in predicting a lot of "Normie" people will see his Odyssey adaptation simply because his name will be on it. Though I'm talking about his name only, I doubt most of these people could pick out a photo of him.
@@TheJohnDoeLibraryRoom.Tenet wouldve been a bigger deal if it was coherent. I doubt the story was worth it because we couldnt hear the dialogue... nobody could. we were told we had to watch the movie four times to understand it. Lynch movies intrigue with mystery and symbolism and the viewer wants to give his work repeat viewings. Tenet maybe showed Nolan to be a fraud... a propagandist finally allowed to make his 'art movie' and he realizes he doesnt have anything to say.
@ OK boomer. Please explain why Piranha, the Friday the 13th series, and I could go on... were extremely popular in the "good old days" when you were younger.
I sort of agree with this, but not totally. I think the output has been very good, but you're right in the sense that we have not seen this generation's Pulp Fiction, Boogie Nights or Fight Club.
auteur cinema is dying because movies cost so much and they have to appeal to multiple cultures. No director gets the autonomy and final cut powers... ari aster. probably a few others so yeah... its not 'dead' but the consumers are maybe to blame. The audience doesnt want art. They scream for formula. the heros journey is almost every movie now. political correctness nade most stories inappropriate. marketing rules now.
Also an oversimplification to call Billy Wilder American. He was 28 when he moved there, and he had already written 12 films in Germany and directed one in France.
A director today is an on-site project manager, working at the direction of studio executives, or he is a brand name used to market studio products (like Eggers).
There have always been numerous great arthouse directors who weren't famous. So, it's not unusual the public doesn't know Paul Thomas Anderson, they didn't know Cassavettes in his day. The real issue here that you're not addressing is that mainstream culture is exhausted.
Very good analysis and really on point, however there is a major blind spot to this and that’s Christopher Nolan. Nolan is a rock star director, maybe not like Tarantino in personality, but he is definitely the biggest star in Hollywood. No movie star could’ve sold Oppenheimer to the tune of almost a billion dollars, except for Nolan. What studios fear is ‘perspective’, hence why most films just look like the last. But Nolan, like Neo in the matrix, is a phenomenon whose perspective is able to sell a tent pole film. If studios wanted to make more money, they would need to find directors who can wield both an artistic AND commercial sensibility, but that would require time, patience and the sacrifice of their own ego.
I'd argue the Barbenheimer phenom is what pushed Oppenheimer into making so much money. That was a pretty big deal, as alot of couples agreed that if the guy had to sit through Barbie the woman had to sit through Oppenheimer. They helped each other. Not that Oppenheimer wouldn't have made money, I just don't think it did all that on its own. I'd also argue that while Nolan is a singular director, his tastes align with studio thinking. He makes the movies they want to make (big event films), so that's why he gets funding... Nolan only became famous because of the batman movies. He was not a household name after Memento. That's why I excluded him, as this was more about directors who's visions are unique and too far out of the studios' playbook to become culturally significant. If you remember, at the end of this video I said the public's thinking aligns with studio/corporate thinking, hence Nolan, the director of comic book movies (studio content) is in the public consciousness. That didn't happen after he made Memento and Insomnia, it happened after he made Batman. Nolan is famous because Batman is famous, and while he was able to make those movies his own, he still would not be who he is without those big budget comic book movies.
@ I wouldn’t say that Nolan’s success as a filmmaker is entirely attributable to Batman or the Barbenheimmer phenomenon. Those are certainly factors, but he’s an undoubtedly skilled and savvy filmmaker who has done great work away from Batman. Plenty of directors have made big superhero films in the past 3 decades and not become household names or had major success outside those franchises (the Russo’s). And even if you cut Oppenheimer’s box office in half it would still be a phenomenal return for a mid century drama. Nolan is loved by studios because he remembers this is a business as much as an art form, and sidestepped becoming a studio tool by combining innovative storytelling techniques usually reserved for arthouse films (playing with timelines) with studio tent pole filmmaking (explosions, space ships, and gun fights!). He’s as much an auteur as Tarantino, Coppola, Lynch, or Wilder and nowhere near a journey man studio filmmaker (like say Shawn Levy). I agree with your video’s general thesis (and loved it) it’s just the Nolan phenomenon is extremely hard to ignore. He should be studied by directors coming up on how to think outside the creative box while also making sure butts get to seat. Unfortunately, studios don’t want to be at the whim of directors or actors anymore and have, to their own detriment, tried to make the IP the star. Budgets are also ridiculous, tech bro wannabe studio heads who have never made a movie are picking projects based on spreadsheets, and corporate streaming and prestige television series have cannibalized what used to be the great theatrical films. These are the enemies of film directors today.
FYI, you missed mentioning Gregg Araki with the Queer Cinema category. Other people have mentioned Nolan, but I also get the feeling he's more of a Corporate lackey whose interests are useful to the corporate landscape. Excellent video, as well as the use of CRITTERS II footage.
Interesting discussion and interesting visuals. However the Rick Rubin AI voiceover and choppy gaps in between words is distracting and detracts from the themes of authenticity this video seems to champion.
That's his voice dude. Go back to earlier videos pre AI, that's the guys actual voice. But it does bring up a funny point which is, it could easily be Rick Rubins voice and perhaps that's what's funny about the times we live. Is this real? Does it matter.
50, former union film crew & former weekly theater goer. Don't know who many of the directors are in the opener. (Miss the desire to be interested). My interest faded in 2000's, then for good when 35mm film projectors were replaced. My old obsession (and 20 year career) is just not that important anymore (to me).
Its the Andy Warhol affect. Capitalism is always the peak of any art movement. The "what" has stayed the same - artists have always gained leverage through attention. The "how" is what changes - generational artists must adopt to in every era because what worked in the past inevitably becomes exploited. To be a thriving artist today you must master the art of commerce. Where do Nolan & Villeneuve sit in the breakdown for you?
If you had common sense directors like Steven Spielberg have been making movies since the 70s 80s and 90s so off course someone will recognise them and not some one who had been doing it since like 2015
Highly perceptive analysis of the recent erosion and decay of cinema culture - but I would add that all of this is indicative of American culture and society in general.
You really think the 1980s, when it was routine to get beaten up for being gay, or the 1960s when women could not open their own bank accounts, was some glorious past?
The same could be said about actors nowadays, and also about the music industry. The relentless pursuit of Profits killed the Art of Cinema and creativity in general.
Alfred Hitchcock was not an American Director , he was born in the UK , he made films in Hollywood but he had made films earlier with BIP (British International Pictures).
well you need to realize that actors are also not as important in this way anymore. because statistically speaking actors they do not sell films writers do not sell films, films sell films that's how it was in 1920 and its how it is now. people have said cinema is dying but to me its only declining and say the mid 20's now will be slow at least the early years but then 100, 200 actors or directors come in and they master the craft they build something spectacular we gain back this art the reason only some people view cinema as art is due to people trying to market it as entertainment. people initially thought books would die to due to plays that didn't happen and now they've evolved people still seek them out now plays are musicals though and do things different from books. the same thing is happening with gaming some say gaming is a fad when others say its gonna kill cinema when in actuality they do completely different things whats killing film is streaming if movies released normally or fucking everywhere every country every city then near the end of its theatrical run hit streaming then fuck film would be back directors would be back. studios should be punished they really should they are trying to make profit not art, when you do that an art fundamentally just dies.
What a terrible take. The title implies fact when there is none, this is just your opinion and it is completely incorrect. You purposely ignore directors that don’t fit your narrative, and your misogyny is showing through the fact you didn’t mention a single female director. Shame on you.
I agree that a majority of society doesn't care about the director anymore. Director's don't pull normal movie-goers. If you remove the director, you remove the soul of the movie though. Popcorn movie fans and social media are killing the heart of cinema. Interesting take on critics being the source of it all. I don't disagree.
Exactly, the flow of news and information are fractured and let's put it this way... now even I can be someone famous just becouse i write this comment, or you cause you did this video. I don't know if it's right or wrong, but it sure is the direction we are on. So if everybody is famous, it means nobody is famous. In this landscape of saturation of content and chaos, is not a concern for the mass media and the studios to create something meaningful and artistic. They just sell people shit like it was chocolate and they are winning, cause people go see the shit they made. Thankfully, this is not the only product... there is good Cinema, but artist are not considered, nor publicize in the big media platform anymore (only the selected ones). In the the life of the average citizen movies are just something to consume for brainless fun, to keep quiet the kids for a few hour. The people that keeps the Cinema alive now, are here on the web.
Yes it’s true. But if you want to be a Movie Director solely for relevance and fame. You must switch careers or be an Actor my friend. Fame and relevance come to a filmmaker because of how many people know his work or like his work. It’s not just given, and even then any relevance has to be super earned, so it is not possible but should not be the point
i don't get why spike lee is so household and yet all his movies are not households in popular culture....Malcom D Lee makes better movies but nobody ever mentions him...
The critic hasn't gone anywhere. Most people are familiar with social curated pop culture these days. Star ratings, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, Critical Drinker... the reason the director isn't important anymore is because Millennial and Gen Z directors are too steeped in nostalgia and symbolism to make original statements.
I do see a heavy focus on mimicry and nostalgia. Though I'd argue the 90s directors were doing the same thing, since their heroes were 70s directors. If you watch those 90s movies, alot of them were mimicking 70s aesthetics. The difference is, the cultural situation was alot different, as I outlined in the video.
@@cine-mechanic8589 George Lucas is purely a nostalgia film maker. The cult of the director is part of the problem with a lack of original statements since the few succesful directors just remake the same theme every time with the same small set of collaborators and writers, often completely draining out any perspective from the Source Material they take on (Danny Boyle is an easy example of this)..
Two great peaks 1970s / 1995-2015. American directors certainly don't matter anymore . Last 2nd new /old wave was 1995-2015 but mostly powered by France Japan Korea the Orient. Irreversible / Suiscide Club/Battle Royale /In The Mood For Love some American indy Devil's Rejects /Matchpoint and rarely a good block buster Dark Knight/ Zodiac. But that wave is over. Easily a list of 600 great films but the names of those films and directors only known to those who watch or read reviews mostly. I rarely watch films. My last best one The Accused (2017) Spain. Been done before but this just ticked all the boxes perfect. Two peaks and that's it. Over. 2016 - 2025 about 25 really great but it's a much thinner list Inherent Vice / Great Beauty /Killing Them Softly.
Director are not only important, but are single handle the most important thing when whe're talking of good films. The opposite is only true for shitty producers wanting to make big bucks with low effort slop.
Excuse me but Alfred Hitchcock is NOT American! He is british. And Billy Wilder is Austrian. Sure, they went to America to make movies but they are NOT American. And Howard Hawks is one the most important directors of all time breaking every rule in film. Movies like "Terminator" are unthinkble without Hawks influence. Another then that, great summery and analysis! Salute.
@@Pietje_Piraat 1. ok can you actually name some examples ? 2. News flash buddy but most films are propaganda including some of you're favourites and as frank miller once said You only complain about propaganda when you disagree with it
Orson Welles believed the director was overrated and far less important than many believe. Both he and John Ford believed good movies happened by accident.
This video is filled with boomer energy pretentiousness that shows you don't know what you're talking about and ironically living in your own bubble as you accuse everyone else of.
This is poorly researched video full of contradiction and false narrative. If you're not qualified to comment on something, better not make any comment at all
I have had many of the same thoughts about films. It feels like it's the same with music as well. As usual capitalism is to blame. I teach at a school where it's divided into two. The business part and the science / arts part. The one group can't spell, can't do maths, can't program, do their assignments, they all basically look and act the same and have absolutely no accountability or ability to do anything original in their work. The other group does great work and I am proud of them every day. I'll let you guess which is which. Sometimes I wonder what the world would look like without that one group. Certainly there wouldn't be 80 Marvel movies. Sorry about the bitterness, I need more sleep.
LOL, no problem, I think bitterness is better than apathy. Unfortunately we're becoming a society that places less and less value on artists and artistry. Especially with A.I. looming.
@@cine-mechanic8589 Yeah this is definitely not the world I imagined when I got my Master's in AI. I thought people would use the tech to make cool stuff, not set up automatic farms that spew out garbage and heat up the planet while making ad money.
@davebooshty299 You're entitled to your Opinion but Rian Johnson has made movies that are actually Good, Looper, Brick, The Brothers Bloom which is highly Underrated, even Knives out
when major film companies have people in production room to oversee race and diversity and inclusion, even the actors are going to stop trying to tell a good story.
@ Sure, but it still is what it is. Entertainment aimed at a broad audience. Oppenheimer is too, and it made a zillion dollars, as is The Hunger Games from decades later, and "Get Out". The grundgy-looking indies you say "should" have been more popular last year are not. They were not popular because they were boring, depressing, joyless and glamourless, and had no popular stars in them, not because people have suddenly become stupid. Depressing, boring films with ugly cinematography have never been popular, despite how some so pretentiously think they "should be", because they somehow think their own tastes are "superior".
Directors might not be important to comic book movies, but they are important to good movies.
He only Comic Book Director that is actually remembered and loved is James Gunn. Guardians 3 poster is one of the few that has A James Gunn Film. Other than that no one cares who directed the films lol.
Directors know nothing.
@Pietje_Piraat Then why not try making a movie without one?
The best directors leave a stamp that says a movie was made with a unifying vision, a single sensibility tying it all together.
@@Pietje_Piraat sure bro sure
@@Pietje_Piraat Try making a movie, then get back to us about how you know nothing.
saying directors don’t matter is stupid. They only don’t when it’s a studio driven film like disney.
L take. You need a unifying voice and vision to pull all the strings. Sure there are happy accidents but that’s like throwing a bunch of ingredients in a bowl without a recipe.
Neon and A24 would disagree.
Neon had ONE hit film (that honestly wasn't good) and y'all ready to call them the next A24
Um...well they're not important if you mean the likes of Zach Snyder, Brett Ratner or most superhero movie directors, i.e, director-for-hire or hacks. Directors with clear visions: (the late) David Lynch, Christopher Nolan, Robert Eggers, Sofia Coppola, Wes Anderson...are immensely important. Their stuff almost always stands out from the dreck.
Snyder is not director for hire. He has his own style.
@@NostalgiNorden sure but his movies are hit or miss no in-between
@@jameslight4391 to whose eyes? assesment on art is very subjective.
@@NostalgiNorden his style is to copy other people's, not sure if that really counts
@@jameslight4391quality isnt the concern here, but instead the question of whether there are auteur sensibilities.
Suckerpunch is stupid, scriptwise, but i can recognize its a zack snyder movie.
Most directors dont pit any stamp on their work because they dont have a vision or else the studio wont let them.
We dont know which it is.
Film is in decline. It guts me but I think history will see it as mostly a 20th century art form. Imagine a bell curve on a timeline with the zenith being in the mid seventies. It's fitting that the last rock star director, Tarantino, has his entire filmography recreating the feeling of the 70s cinema he grew up with.
U read my brainwaves, I got same feeling. So if two person on this planet feel same - it is real process of decline yes
It’s definitely a 20th century art form. Was thinking that the other day. Content has taken over. See what happens with virtual head sets and AI.
@ what if it is posible to create beutiful thing within content framework. Like it so bad it is good
I hate that you may be right, but I see the same signs. Though I don't think it will ever totally go away, because studios will keep making big budget event films and people will still see them in droves, because people will always want to go out and see something (just like they will always want to go to bars, clubs, concerts, etc). I think the more artistic stuff will become more niche though, sadly.
@@bbrother92 there are good movies still coming out this guys problem (the video) is that they are not the bestselling. They don't always have to be there are lots of good movies that are not the best selling and people still like them
Great video! I was wondering why I wasn't see any more new films from some of my favorite directors. This video needs to be shown in film schools!
not a single female director mentioned???
Fantastic and very accurate analysis of the current sate of affairs.
A24 seems to be director friendly
Great video! You make some excellent points. I think there probably are some significant directors today but, in a way, it can be harder to find them.
Hollywood adapts, it never changes. Just watch that scene in Robert Altman’s “The Player” where the Peter Gallagher character explains why they don’t need screenwriters and think about what they’ve been doing with AI now some 30 years after that movie.
Very good point.
No one actually uses AI to write scripts in real life. NOT EVER.
Why Nolan not mentioned?
Take a look at my reply to @kenxentertainment's comment
Good video. Your comment section is full of people missing the point entirely.
You strained hard to not mention Nolan, as though you feared he ruined the point of your video. You could have just argued he's the exception that proves the rule.
I'm aware of Nolan, yes. I excluded him for a reason. I'd argue that while Nolan is a singular director, his tastes align with studio thinking. He makes the movies they want to make (big event films), so that's why he gets funding... Nolan only became famous because of the batman movies. He was not a household name after Memento. That's why I excluded him, as this was more about directors who's visions are unique and too far out of the studios' playbook to become culturally significant. If you remember, at the end of this video I said the public's thinking aligns with studio/corporate thinking, hence Nolan, the director of comic book movies (studio content) is in the public consciousness. That didn't happen after he made Memento and Insomnia, it happened after he made Batman. Nolan is famous because Batman is famous, and while he was able to make those movies his own, he still would not be who he is without those big budget comic book movies.
@@cine-mechanic8589 - It's definitely fair to say the Dark Knight trilogy made his name, but it was the Nolan Brand that sold Inception and Interstellar (Tenet would have been a bigger deal if not for Covid) like they did. Oppenheimer is a muddier affair because of the whole Barbenheimer thing, which no one could have predicted. I feel safe in predicting a lot of "Normie" people will see his Odyssey adaptation simply because his name will be on it. Though I'm talking about his name only, I doubt most of these people could pick out a photo of him.
@@cine-mechanic8589Spielberg also become household name because of his blockbusters. You're intellectually dishonest
@@TheJohnDoeLibraryRoom.He's a hypocrite. Anything he says applies to nolan also applies to Spielberg.
@@TheJohnDoeLibraryRoom.Tenet wouldve been a bigger deal if it was coherent.
I doubt the story was worth it because we couldnt hear the dialogue... nobody could.
we were told we had to watch the movie four times to understand it.
Lynch movies intrigue with mystery and symbolism and the viewer wants to give his work repeat viewings.
Tenet maybe showed Nolan to be a fraud... a propagandist finally allowed to make his 'art movie' and he realizes he doesnt have anything to say.
Hollywood ditched mid-budget and indie films.
hes right that the public demanded smarter movies in the 1970s.
The public is more artless now. movies are targeted to a lower intelligence now.
@ OK boomer. Please explain why Piranha, the Friday the 13th series, and I could go on... were extremely popular in the "good old days" when you were younger.
Couldn’t agree less. The voices and talent just haven’t been coming through. But everything is cyclical. What’s old will become new again.
I sort of agree with this, but not totally. I think the output has been very good, but you're right in the sense that we have not seen this generation's Pulp Fiction, Boogie Nights or Fight Club.
auteur cinema is dying because movies cost so much and they have to appeal to multiple cultures.
No director gets the autonomy and final cut powers... ari aster. probably a few others so yeah... its not 'dead' but the consumers are maybe to blame.
The audience doesnt want art. They scream for formula.
the heros journey is almost every movie now.
political correctness nade most stories inappropriate.
marketing rules now.
@ Not any more than they always did.
Hitchcock was not American
Less than 2 minutes watching and that was enough for me to quit. It's the little things.
Also an oversimplification to call Billy Wilder American. He was 28 when he moved there, and he had already written 12 films in Germany and directed one in France.
@@DrScorpio313 It wasn't the serial killer voice over that did it?
A director today is an on-site project manager, working at the direction of studio executives, or he is a brand name used to market studio products (like Eggers).
There have always been numerous great arthouse directors who weren't famous. So, it's not unusual the public doesn't know Paul Thomas Anderson, they didn't know Cassavettes in his day. The real issue here that you're not addressing is that mainstream culture is exhausted.
Very good analysis and really on point, however there is a major blind spot to this and that’s Christopher Nolan. Nolan is a rock star director, maybe not like Tarantino in personality, but he is definitely the biggest star in Hollywood. No movie star could’ve sold Oppenheimer to the tune of almost a billion dollars, except for Nolan. What studios fear is ‘perspective’, hence why most films just look like the last. But Nolan, like Neo in the matrix, is a phenomenon whose perspective is able to sell a tent pole film. If studios wanted to make more money, they would need to find directors who can wield both an artistic AND commercial sensibility, but that would require time, patience and the sacrifice of their own ego.
I'd argue the Barbenheimer phenom is what pushed Oppenheimer into making so much money. That was a pretty big deal, as alot of couples agreed that if the guy had to sit through Barbie the woman had to sit through Oppenheimer. They helped each other. Not that Oppenheimer wouldn't have made money, I just don't think it did all that on its own. I'd also argue that while Nolan is a singular director, his tastes align with studio thinking. He makes the movies they want to make (big event films), so that's why he gets funding... Nolan only became famous because of the batman movies. He was not a household name after Memento. That's why I excluded him, as this was more about directors who's visions are unique and too far out of the studios' playbook to become culturally significant. If you remember, at the end of this video I said the public's thinking aligns with studio/corporate thinking, hence Nolan, the director of comic book movies (studio content) is in the public consciousness. That didn't happen after he made Memento and Insomnia, it happened after he made Batman. Nolan is famous because Batman is famous, and while he was able to make those movies his own, he still would not be who he is without those big budget comic book movies.
@ I wouldn’t say that Nolan’s success as a filmmaker is entirely attributable to Batman or the Barbenheimmer phenomenon. Those are certainly factors, but he’s an undoubtedly skilled and savvy filmmaker who has done great work away from Batman. Plenty of directors have made big superhero films in the past 3 decades and not become household names or had major success outside those franchises (the Russo’s). And even if you cut Oppenheimer’s box office in half it would still be a phenomenal return for a mid century drama. Nolan is loved by studios because he remembers this is a business as much as an art form, and sidestepped becoming a studio tool by combining innovative storytelling techniques usually reserved for arthouse films (playing with timelines) with studio tent pole filmmaking (explosions, space ships, and gun fights!). He’s as much an auteur as Tarantino, Coppola, Lynch, or Wilder and nowhere near a journey man studio filmmaker (like say Shawn Levy). I agree with your video’s general thesis (and loved it) it’s just the Nolan phenomenon is extremely hard to ignore. He should be studied by directors coming up on how to think outside the creative box while also making sure butts get to seat. Unfortunately, studios don’t want to be at the whim of directors or actors anymore and have, to their own detriment, tried to make the IP the star. Budgets are also ridiculous, tech bro wannabe studio heads who have never made a movie are picking projects based on spreadsheets, and corporate streaming and prestige television series have cannibalized what used to be the great theatrical films. These are the enemies of film directors today.
The digital culture has ruined movies.
The Director is the person who makes the film. Directors will always be important.
Oh yeah, because I'm sure movies would be so much better if they didn't have directros and every decision was just made by committee 🙄
This elegy practically brought me to tears...
Be well.
FYI, you missed mentioning Gregg Araki with the Queer Cinema category. Other people have mentioned Nolan, but I also get the feeling he's more of a Corporate lackey whose interests are useful to the corporate landscape.
Excellent video, as well as the use of CRITTERS II footage.
Interesting discussion and interesting visuals. However the Rick Rubin AI voiceover and choppy gaps in between words is distracting and detracts from the themes of authenticity this video seems to champion.
That's his voice dude. Go back to earlier videos pre AI, that's the guys actual voice. But it does bring up a funny point which is, it could easily be Rick Rubins voice and perhaps that's what's funny about the times we live. Is this real? Does it matter.
50, former union film crew & former weekly theater goer. Don't know who many of the directors are in the opener. (Miss the desire to be interested). My interest faded in 2000's, then for good when 35mm film projectors were replaced. My old obsession (and 20 year career) is just not that important anymore (to me).
Hey, it happened to me.
Any female directors as well included along with the great male directors?
Its the Andy Warhol affect. Capitalism is always the peak of any art movement. The "what" has stayed the same - artists have always gained leverage through attention. The "how" is what changes - generational artists must adopt to in every era because what worked in the past inevitably becomes exploited. To be a thriving artist today you must master the art of commerce. Where do Nolan & Villeneuve sit in the breakdown for you?
If you had common sense directors like Steven Spielberg have been making movies since the 70s 80s and 90s so off course someone will recognise them and not some one who had been doing it since like 2015
Highly perceptive analysis of the recent erosion and decay of cinema culture - but I would add that all of this is indicative of American culture and society in general.
You really think the 1980s, when it was routine to get beaten up for being gay, or the 1960s when women could not open their own bank accounts, was some glorious past?
They are the next face/star power of the movie after the leading men/woman era got over .
The same could be said about actors nowadays, and also about the music industry. The relentless pursuit of Profits killed the Art of Cinema and creativity in general.
The problem is Netflix
Alfred Hitchcock was not an American Director , he was born in the UK , he made films in Hollywood but he had made films earlier with BIP (British International Pictures).
well you need to realize that actors are also not as important in this way anymore. because statistically speaking actors they do not sell films writers do not sell films, films sell films that's how it was in 1920 and its how it is now. people have said cinema is dying but to me its only declining and say the mid 20's now will be slow at least the early years but then 100, 200 actors or directors come in and they master the craft they build something spectacular we gain back this art the reason only some people view cinema as art is due to people trying to market it as entertainment. people initially thought books would die to due to plays that didn't happen and now they've evolved people still seek them out now plays are musicals though and do things different from books. the same thing is happening with gaming some say gaming is a fad when others say its gonna kill cinema when in actuality they do completely different things whats killing film is streaming if movies released normally or fucking everywhere every country every city then near the end of its theatrical run hit streaming then fuck film would be back directors would be back. studios should be punished they really should they are trying to make profit not art, when you do that an art fundamentally just dies.
What a terrible take. The title implies fact when there is none, this is just your opinion and it is completely incorrect. You purposely ignore directors that don’t fit your narrative, and your misogyny is showing through the fact you didn’t mention a single female director. Shame on you.
Your mic is picking up some noise.
For some reason I wasn't picking that up on my end. I'll be sure and correct it next time, thanks for pointing that out.
11:54 _AND_ Christopher Nolan!!
Yeah I excluded him for a reason (take a look at my reply to @kenxentertainment's comment)
Is this video itself made from an assembly line without and personal craftsmanship going into it?
Hitchcock is now suddenly not from England??
Yeah I caught that after I published the video, my bad.
He was still a Hollywood director
It is ironic that the freedom of expression afforded by the internet resulted in the homogenous corporate ideologies of the present.
I agree that a majority of society doesn't care about the director anymore. Director's don't pull normal movie-goers. If you remove the director, you remove the soul of the movie though. Popcorn movie fans and social media are killing the heart of cinema. Interesting take on critics being the source of it all. I don't disagree.
I’m pretty sure Killers of the Flower Moon and Oppenheimer being packed had a lot to do with Scorsese and Nolan
@@nitevibe9886 Minus a very small group of directors like the video mentioned. I watched the entire thing, did you?
@@nitevibe9886 He mentioned Scorsese, but Nolan would fall into that very small group as well.
That’s also the point of the discussion.
I can’t wait for the remastered special edition of Black Widow
r/blankies: (fingers in ears).
We are in a new Dark Age.
My favourite Directors are in the adult film business, that's the future.
lmao
Exactly, the flow of news and information are fractured and let's put it this way... now even I can be someone famous just becouse i write this comment, or you cause you did this video. I don't know if it's right or wrong, but it sure is the direction we are on.
So if everybody is famous, it means nobody is famous. In this landscape of saturation of content and chaos, is not a concern for the mass media and the studios to create something meaningful and artistic.
They just sell people shit like it was chocolate and they are winning, cause people go see the shit they made.
Thankfully, this is not the only product... there is good Cinema, but artist are not considered, nor publicize in the big media platform anymore (only the selected ones).
In the the life of the average citizen movies are just something to consume for brainless fun, to keep quiet the kids for a few hour.
The people that keeps the Cinema alive now, are here on the web.
Yes it’s true. But if you want to be a Movie Director solely for relevance and fame. You must switch careers or be an Actor my friend. Fame and relevance come to a filmmaker because of how many people know his work or like his work. It’s not just given, and even then any relevance has to be super earned, so it is not possible but should not be the point
i don't get why spike lee is so household and yet all his movies are not households in popular culture....Malcom D Lee makes better movies but nobody ever mentions him...
Movies aren’t important anymore, it’s very sad but such a medium can’t compete with every other kind of media
LIKE WHICH OTHER MEDIUM?
@@geraldricoguevara3340 TH-cam, TikTok, TV series, video games are all far more relevant culturally than cinema now and it isn't even close.
The critic hasn't gone anywhere. Most people are familiar with social curated pop culture these days. Star ratings, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, Critical Drinker... the reason the director isn't important anymore is because Millennial and Gen Z directors are too steeped in nostalgia and symbolism to make original statements.
I do see a heavy focus on mimicry and nostalgia. Though I'd argue the 90s directors were doing the same thing, since their heroes were 70s directors. If you watch those 90s movies, alot of them were mimicking 70s aesthetics. The difference is, the cultural situation was alot different, as I outlined in the video.
@@cine-mechanic8589 George Lucas is purely a nostalgia film maker. The cult of the director is part of the problem with a lack of original statements since the few succesful directors just remake the same theme every time with the same small set of collaborators and writers, often completely draining out any perspective from the Source Material they take on (Danny Boyle is an easy example of this)..
Nightmare Alley is phenomenal
In the 70s, comic and action movies were terrible.
Diehard changed that for action movies.
Superman and Batman changed that for comic book movies.
Mad max and even before die hard there was Indiana Jones and Lethal weapon
Wow!!! No Michael Bay, Zack Snyder, Christopher Nolan lol
Two great peaks 1970s / 1995-2015. American directors certainly don't matter anymore . Last 2nd new /old wave was 1995-2015 but mostly powered by France Japan Korea the Orient. Irreversible / Suiscide Club/Battle Royale /In The Mood For Love some American indy Devil's Rejects /Matchpoint and rarely a good block buster Dark Knight/ Zodiac. But that wave is over. Easily a list of 600 great films but the names of those films and directors only known to those who watch or read reviews mostly. I rarely watch films. My last best one The Accused (2017) Spain. Been done before but this just ticked all the boxes perfect. Two peaks and that's it. Over. 2016 - 2025 about 25 really great but it's a much thinner list Inherent Vice / Great Beauty /Killing Them Softly.
Director are not only important, but are single handle the most important thing when whe're talking of good films. The opposite is only true for shitty producers wanting to make big bucks with low effort slop.
Excuse me but Alfred Hitchcock is NOT American! He is british. And Billy Wilder is Austrian. Sure, they went to America to make movies but they are NOT American.
And Howard Hawks is one the most important directors of all time breaking every rule in film. Movies like "Terminator" are unthinkble without Hawks influence.
Another then that, great summery and analysis! Salute.
Not sure you're actually watching what's out there. An amazing movement of new female filmmakers that were markedly absent form that opening list
You mean the boring sleep inducing pieces of propaganda they make? Aint no one watching that crap.
@ check out the substance. I doubt you will fall asleep
@@Pietje_Piraat 1. ok can you actually name some examples ?
2. News flash buddy but most films are propaganda including some of you're favourites and as frank miller once said
You only complain about propaganda when you disagree with it
another terrific piece of cinema discourse that is genuinely intellectually stimulating. please keep them coming!!
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed!😀
@@cine-mechanic8589 also I would love to watch film analysis from you, like why some films works and some not
@@bbrother92 Stay tuned.
Sam Raimi? Ang Lee and Nolan?
Who's the woman in the thumbnail?
His abducted wife.
Orson Welles believed the director was overrated and far less important than many believe. Both he and John Ford believed good movies happened by accident.
Kevin smith?
What ?
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AUTHORS....
A.I. Narrated video! I'm out!!!! >:I
Speak for yourself boy!
Eh maybe Refn?
This video is filled with boomer energy pretentiousness that shows you don't know what you're talking about and ironically living in your own bubble as you accuse everyone else of.
Yes. Pompous old boomer. Next he'll say that EDM is not real music, only Arlo Guthrie.
I like the direction the industry is heading. Not where it was.
Yeah the Make A Wish formula Hollywood decrees is really churning out the classics
ok why ?
This is poorly researched video full of contradiction and false narrative. If you're not qualified to comment on something, better not make any comment at all
ok can you explain why
But no one cares about SNL anymore. And Barbie is a poorly directed film (even worse writing). And peele is kind of a hack and a race-baiter.
I have had many of the same thoughts about films. It feels like it's the same with music as well. As usual capitalism is to blame. I teach at a school where it's divided into two. The business part and the science / arts part. The one group can't spell, can't do maths, can't program, do their assignments, they all basically look and act the same and have absolutely no accountability or ability to do anything original in their work. The other group does great work and I am proud of them every day. I'll let you guess which is which. Sometimes I wonder what the world would look like without that one group. Certainly there wouldn't be 80 Marvel movies. Sorry about the bitterness, I need more sleep.
LOL, no problem, I think bitterness is better than apathy. Unfortunately we're becoming a society that places less and less value on artists and artistry. Especially with A.I. looming.
@@cine-mechanic8589 Yeah this is definitely not the world I imagined when I got my Master's in AI. I thought people would use the tech to make cool stuff, not set up automatic farms that spew out garbage and heat up the planet while making ad money.
Tarantino is still important and always will be.
Agreed. I just used him in the thumbnail as an example of the previous era... I still think he's relevant.
He got into business in 90s, it was waaaay easy back then. Now window of oportunity is closes
Pastiche.
@ what is Pastiche and why
Rian Jonson is never important to me.
Cry harder.
If you're referring to The whole Last Jedi thing, Get over it
@@bluetrailerproductions7488 yeah that movie is and was embarrassing , I agree.
@@bluetrailerproductions7488 Easily one of the Worst movies ever I agree.
@davebooshty299 You're entitled to your Opinion but Rian Johnson has made movies that are actually Good, Looper, Brick, The Brothers Bloom which is highly Underrated, even Knives out
when major film companies have people in production room to oversee race and diversity and inclusion, even the actors are going to stop trying to tell a good story.
Dumb take with a stupid clickbait title
one of the stupidest video in the internet
film is dying media
I hate that you may be right.
@@cine-mechanic8589 yes, but the TV shows are doing well, so there's still a safe harbor left for you (any filmaker)
no it isn't
@@Potatoriply well def cinema winter is coming
@@bbrother92 They’ve been saying that since the birth of Television and it continues to adapt.
Uh, sorry but Jaws was a popcorn blockbuster, and who are you to decide what is "best"?
well jaws is great and compare that to most blockbusters coming out today
It was a first of its kind. It was pure hell making and filming that shark and it changed the way many approached the water from that point on.
@ Sure, but it still is what it is. Entertainment aimed at a broad audience. Oppenheimer is too, and it made a zillion dollars, as is The Hunger Games from decades later, and "Get Out". The grundgy-looking indies you say "should" have been more popular last year are not. They were not popular because they were boring, depressing, joyless and glamourless, and had no popular stars in them, not because people have suddenly become stupid. Depressing, boring films with ugly cinematography have never been popular, despite how some so pretentiously think they "should be", because they somehow think their own tastes are "superior".
Because modern directors’ films aren’t films they’re videos and they are garbage