I made a post about the term GOAT and why I feel everybody is using the term wrong. In this post, I am going to explore who I think is the greatest film director of all time. I will be going through who is in the conversation and exploring why they are not the GOAT before ending on who I think is the GOAT.
In my former post, I stated that the criteria one decides on is the most important part of the GOAT discostion.
Here are my criteria for the greatest film director of all time.
1 They should make movies over several decades.
The all-time aspect is important and that is why you have to go through multiple decades
2 They have to have a variety, they can’t just be good at making one kind of movie. They need to master different kinds of genres
3 they need to have made a classic film
They need to have edge their name into the history of cinema.
4 they need to have made good movies
This is self-explanatory, but their body of work has to be of high quality. It’s okay to release a bad movie from time to time, but the majority of their work should be good.
5 Mainstream doesn’t matter
The average movie-going audience doesn’t know movies on a deep level, thus commercial success and mainstream apeal are not important.
In summary, they have to master different genres over a long period of time and they have to have made good classic movies.
Stephen Spielberg
Pros
Spielberg is definitely in the GOAT conversation; he has made multiple high-quality films throughout the decades.
He has great variety having made fun action adventures like the Indiana Jones and Jurassic park films. He has made one of the best war movies in saving private Ryan. He made an emotional masterpiece in Schindler’s List. He invented the blockbuster with Jaws.
Cons
The overall quality of his films is dwindling fast. It seems like the more he works on something the worse it gets. The Indiana Jones trilogy is fantastic, but the fourth one is utter shit. The Jurassic Park movies also got progressively worse.
His newer movies are also of lesser quality. Movies like Bridge of spies and the post are generic and unremarkable, whereas the BFG and ready player one were just straight-up bad.
Martin Scorsese
Pros
Martin has made some classic films, including Goodfellas, Taxi driver, and raging bull to name a few.
He has demonstrated variety by making a fun and cheeky movie like “the wolf of wall street” and a fun and magical family film like HUGO.
His newer movies are still of high quality, unlike Spielberg’s.
Cons
A large number of his films are gangster films, this means the quality is lower if you are not a fan of that subject matter.
He has also worked a little too much with the same actors namely De Niro and Decaprio. This might seem like weird criticism, but I think it has hindered some of the films. It has also become distracting to a point.
Alfred Hitchcock
Pros
Incredible in all aspects of directing, from blocking the characters to cinematography and camera movement, Hitchcock is simply the best.
He is the master of atmosphere and can make you hold your breath in suspense for a long period of time.
He has made classics like Psycho, Vertigo, Rear windows, and many more
He was the first to use a toilet flush in a film, if that doesn’t GOAT him I don’t know what will.
Cons
Lacks variety. While he excels at horror/thriller the one time he made a comedy it turned out painfully bad.
Overuse of blonds
Orson Welles
Pros
He made Citizen Kane probably the most influential movie ever, there is a clear before and after Citizen Kane in movie history.
He directed several great films like Touch of Evil, Citizen Kane, and the stranger
He also made an all-time great documentary in F is for Fake, showing a form of variety.
Cons
Lacks variety when it comes to genres
Not the biggest body of work
The Coen Brothers
Pros
Great variety in genre and tone. While most of their films are cheeky comedies the Coens have shown they can do almost anything. From the dark and brooding No country for old men to the slow introspective inside Llewen Davis.
Their pool of quality is also great. I would not consider any of their films bad.
Big Lebowski and Fargo are both what I would consider modern classics.
Cons
They are two and thus it becomes hard to judge who directed what in their films.
Unlike others on this list, the Coens have not been at it for as many decades.
They still need a bit more time
Akira Kurosawa
Pros
Has basically inspired every single filmmaker that came after him.
His cuts and camera movements are second to none.
The overall pool of quality is great and he has made classics like Seven Samurai, Rashomon, and the throne of blood.
He shows some form of variety with his masterpiece Ikiru. Ikiru is a nice change of pace from all the samurai films
Cons
He has made a lot of samurai films. Which hurt him on the variety aspect.
Billy Wilder
Pros
Incredible variety, from the funny Some like it hot, to the thrilling Witness for the Prosecution to the icon and tragic Sunset Boulevard. Billy could do it all.
His movies are of high quality even the lesser known ones
He has definitely made classics.
Cons
I got nothing
He might be considered more of a screenwriter than a director, but he still directed his films…..
Stanley Kubrick (The GOAT)
Yes, Kubrick is who I consider to be the greatest director of all time.
He made his first film “fear and desire” back in 1952 and his last film was in 1999. His career spans multiple decades.
If you were to make some kind of list of the best films in each genre odds are you are going to run into a Kubrick film.
The shining is a classic horror movie if not the best horror movie ever
Dr. Strangelove is a classic comedy if not the best
2001 is one of the most influential movies ever along with Citizen Kane.
Barry Lyndon and Spartacus are both masterful period pieces.
Path of glory is one of if not the greatest war movie ever made. (Fullmetal Jacket is also a top 10 war movie).
A Clockwork Orange is an instantly recognizable dystopian sci-fi movie and a classic.
No other director has made classics in so many different genres.
He also had a very distinct style, A slow, cold, and methodical way of directing films. Yet that style would not suit films like Dr. Strangelove, so he did not go full Kubrick on that film.
He also made the greatest cut in film history with the cut in 2001. From ape to interstellar space travel in one cut.
Remember in Pulp Fiction where Tarantino shows events out of chronological order? Wasn’t that cool?
Yeah, and it was cool when Kubrick did it back in the 50tis in “The killing”
Cons
His two first movies are not good. They are straight-up bad, I will note that he did not write those.
Lolita was also a bit generic.
He has a distinct style that might not be for everybody, however, I feel that’s not really on Kubrick. In fact, I would argue the GOAT has to have a recognizable style.