Who is your favorite film director of the past?

To date, the death of Stanley Kubrick in 1999 was the only celebrity death that ever truly upset me. The bulk of his career were some of the best films ever made. After he died, Steven Spielberg said of him, "He copied no one." He was so right!

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY continues to be my all-time favorite film since I was in college. Ironically, I hated it the first time I saw it, having grown up with the speed of excitement of Star Wars films and such. DR. STRANGELOVE remains one of my five favorite black and white films. THE SHINING, one of my top three favorite horror films. Watching THE KILLING, you can clearly see where Quentin Tarrantino got his inspiration for Reservoir Dogs. Even his final swan song, EYES WIDE SHUT, has good merrit with me. Had he lived long enough to edit the film, it might have been better received by fans and critics. However, after repeated viewings, once can find that Kubrick genius in the way it's filmed and the story that it tells. You just have to get past Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. Also, the story for Spielberg's A.I. was originally envisioned by Kubrick.

His filmography, as director, in chronological order:

- FEAR AND DESIRE
- KILLER'S KISS
- THE KILLING
- PATHS OF GLORY
- SPARTACUS
- LOLITA
- DR. STRANGELOVE
- 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY
- A CLOCKWORK ORANGE
- BARRY LYNDON
- THE SHINGING
- FULL METAL JACKET
- EYES WIDE SHUT

He will be missed.

I would also like to say that of the choices I came up with, Alfred Hitchcock comes in a close second and Orson Welles a close third.

My favorite director is William Wyler and he also held the record for the most Oscars won by a director I don't know if that is still true or not. He directed films such as Wuthering Heights,Best years of Our Lives, Roman Holiday,The Big Country,Ben Hur, and Funny Girl. He directed both Katharine Hepburn and Bettie Davis. Billy Wilder,John Ford,Alfred Hitchcock,George Cuckor,Howard Hawks,Joseph L Mankiewicz,Vincent Minnelli and Fred Zinnemann are among my favorite directors the likes you will never see again.I can't believe you left John Ford off your list.brucec

Here I go again, thinking "outside of the box". I could find rationale to name any one of these great Directors. For instance, Michael Curtis directed my favorite film ("Casablanca"), Orson Welles was probably the greatest genius of them all, Alfred Hitchcock could take a field of grass and make it appear dramatic, and so on. But, what about pure "escapism" and amusement? There are times when we want to come out of a movie simply with that feeling we have seen a plain honest-to-goodness movie, rather than someone's statement captured on celluloid. So, I gravitate towards those who just wanted to make movies, such as-GASP!!!-Ed Wood. I loved the scene in his "biopic" when Ed Wood meets Orson Welles in a bar and Ed proclaims that they are the only two writer/director/producers in Hollywood. Also, many of the Grade-B westerns and "povery row' directors may never earn a niche in movie history, but they turned out a product that entertained America for years in the neighborhood movie houses. Here's to those "unsung" masters!

Another excellent list. While all these directors did excellent work, I had to go with Hitchcock. Even to this day, the influence he had on the movies is undeniable. A close second would be Wyler with Kubrick a third, for "2001" alone. I would also like to include Sergei Eisenstein and David Lean for the quality of their work. A very honorable mention goes to the great Czech director Karel Zeman for the unique and innovative use of live action, animation, graphics, model animation and painted sets in such films like the original "Baron Munchausen" and his masterpiece, "The Fabulous World of Jules Verne".Truly forgotten classics that need to be better known.

My first pick was Elia Kazan, who directed three of my most favorite movies of all time, EAST OF EDEN, WILD RIVER, and, of course, the outfront masterpiece, ON THE WATERFRONT. Meantime, although their names didn't make the above poll list, I'm so glad someone mentioned John Ford. For I regard his GRAPES OF WRATH (1940)) as being right up there with ON THE WATERFRONT itself! And I'm also happy to see someone mentioned David Lean, the latter having directed no less than THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, DR. ZHIVAGO and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA.

Of other great directors who didn't make the list, but who perhaps deserved to, Frank Capra, Jean Renoir, Federico Fellini, and the recently passed-away Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni. And how can we possibly rule out John Huston? Other names that in some circles might've made the above polling list are Otto Preminger, Cecil B. DeMille, Darryl F. Zanuck, D.W. Griffith, Sergio Leoni and Preston Sturges. Finally, had she not made a massive career blunder by producing propaganda flicks for history's most nototious dictator, Leni Reifenstahl might well have gone down as one of the greatest directors of all time.

Of the list above Hitchcock is my pick. However, my personal favorites are Sam Peckinpah, Sergio Leone and Ed Wood.

Michael Curtiz is my favorite director. When you look at the scope of his work you begin to understand how talented he was. Captain Blood, Kid Galahad, The Adventures of Robin Hood, Dodge City, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Casablanca, Mildred Pierce, White Christmas, and the Comancheros are my favorites. It didn't matter if it was comedy, drama, action, or a musical he could do it all. That's why I think he was the greatest director of all time. Look at the list. Who else could direct Errol Flynn, Bogey, the Duke, and Joan Crawford and live to tell about it? It just isn't that he was versatile, he was good.

Michael Curtiz is my favorite director. When you look at the scope of his work you begin to understand how talented he was. Captain Blood, Kid Galahad, The Adventures of Robin Hood, Dodge City, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Casablanca, Mildred Pierce, White Christmas, and the Comancheros are my favorites. It didn't matter if it was comedy, drama, action, or a musical he could do it all. That's why I think he was the greatest director of all time. Look at the list. Who else could direct Errol Flynn, Bogey, the Duke, and Joan Crawford and live to tell about it? It just isn't that he was versatile, he was good.

It's interesting to note, though the above poll continues evolving, that the man who directed two of what many regard as the greatest movies of all time -- Victor Fleming -- has hardly mustered any votes as of yet. Yet he directed both THE WIZARD OF OZ and GONE WITH THE WIND, and both within the same year at that! And I don't think any of the other directors mentioned, not even my all-time fave, Elia Kazan, could begin to match that! For keep in mind we're talking about two of the biggest blockbuster movies of all time and that continue to be. That is, in the evergreen sense. How did he do it? I don't know. That's just the way of greatness. And keep in mind that with these two works he totally redefined what had been coming out of Hollywood up until that point, giving the world its first truly modern films. They brought the history of cinema into a totally new age, making it clear that motion pictures were a powerful new art form rather than just some momentary fad, a novelty thing for the moment.

So although I cast my vote for Elia Kazan, I just had to give some major credit where it's clearly due.

Si

Looks like part of my statment got printed even before I completed it-not my fault! I was saying...Since I already put in a word for some "unsung masters", let me put in a word for an overseas favorite-one who made his mark not only upon Japanese cinema, but upon WORLD cinema. No, it's not Akira Kurasawa, though he deserves acclaim also, but his co-worker and lifelong friend, Ishiro (Inishiro) Honda. Back in 1954, one one movie (Gojira) could easily have come and gone without a second notice. Honda's brilliant direction parlayed it-and a whole new genre of film-into an experience that has outlived his life and continues today.

I couldn't ignore Victor Fleming as a choice. Not only for GONE WITH THE WIND and THE WIZARD OF OZ, but also A GUY NAMED JOE, which Steven Spielberg remade as ALWAYS in 1989.

Looking back now, I wish I'd chosen David Lean instead of Stanley Kramer. These lists can be impossible! How do you choose just ten???

I loved the "master of disaster "Irwin Allen"!!. Who can forgetclassics like "The Towering Inferno" and TV'sd "Lost in Space" among many others.

Fedoozle: Alas, and here I thought you were agreeing with me about Victor Fleming, while doing so in Spanish. While I had to stop and think with regard to Victor Fleming, why in Spanish??? So thanks for clearing that up.

Meantime to Love movies - hate going: You are so right! How can you narrow great directors of the past down to just merely 10! For they were all great in their own way, while the list just keeps growing.

As for disaster flicks, Irwin Allen did do some really great ones, while I feel Mark Robson should get some credit for EARTHQUAKE, which starred no less than Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner. And in the past a personal disaster flick favorite of mine was ROLLERCOASTER, directed by James Goldstone and with an all-star cast of George Segal, Richard Widmark and Henry Fonda. Add to this disaster-flick list THE CHINA SYNDROME, directed by James Bridges and starring Jack Lemmon, Michael Douglas and Jane Fonda. For that became a disaster flick where life imitated art, the whole Three-Mile Island thing. Finally, credit should go to George P. Cosmatos, the brilliant Italian director of THE CASSANDRA CROSSING.

But of the greatest disaster flicks of all time, I think that honor will forever be held by KING KONG (1933), jointly directed by Merian Caldwell Cooper and Ernest Beaumont Schoedsack. As movie direction goes it was their only claim to fame, but oh, did they ever revolutionize cinema with that one!

To TheaterBuff-Sorry you were misled, but I do agree that Victor Fleming deserves praise, not only for GONE WITH THE WIND, but two of my particular favorites, THE VIRGINIAN and CAPTAINS COURAGEOUS.
Thanks, also, for paying respects to Cooper and Schoedsack-they also did two mainly forgotten films, GRASS and CHANG, and were responsible for FOUR FEATHERS and one of the all-time great "unpretentious" movies, one that was as thrilling as the short story it was based upon, THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME. It is interesting to compare Robert Armstrons's performance in that film with that of KING KONG.

TheaterBuff1, I loved ROLLERCOASTER, THE CHINA SYNDROME and THE CASSANDRA CROSSING. However, I never really considered them to be disaster movies. While ROLLERCOASTER and THE CASSANDRA CROSSING do feature disastrous results, they play out more like straight-forward thrillers. THE CHINA SYNDROME plays out more like tense drama.

I also loved AIRPORT '77, directed by Jennings Lang. I liked the dark plot behind the airplane takeover. I'm sure that when Arthur Hailey wrote his novel AIRPORT in the 1960's, he never imagined he would kick off a disaster genre that would last an entire decade.

Well, this thread has gone decidedly off track. Why not a "favorite disaster/giant monster/bomb on plane/nuclear meltdown poll? Actually, it's kind of fun and I'm going to throw in "Two Minute Warning" (Larry Peerce) and "Black Sunday" (John Frankenheimer) both "plot to kill a bunch of football fans" flicks as well.

Hey, don't you diss BLACK SUNDAY! To date, it is still my favorite thriller of all time! I watch it once every year around Super Bowl time (big surprise there, huh?). John Frankenheimer gave us that and some other great films like THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, THE TRAIN, BIRDMAN OF ALCATRAZ and RONIN. On the other hand, he also gave us duds like FRENCH CONNECTION II, PROPHECY, 52 PICK-UP and REINDEER GAMES.

It's too bad original BLACK SUNDAY novelist Thomas Harris hasn't been able to get beyond his Hannibal Lechter rut as a writer ever since. Talk about beating a dead horse to death!

Oh, yeah, and by the way, returning to great directors of the past - let me be the first to mention Charles Chaplin and the legacy he gave us!

to Love movies...Yes! Chaplin not only starred in and directed classics, he also "re-invented" them, as in the example of "Gold Rush" which somehow became even greater when he added narration and sound effects.

I voted for Michael Curtiz. But these guys also deserve a mention:

William Wellman
Raoul Walsh
James Whale

Re the so called "disaster" films, does anybody remember John Fords "The Hurricane", "In Old Chicago", and, of course "San Francisco" with Gable, Tracy and Jeanette Mc Donald? While not in the Irwin Allen mold, these were excellent "story " films that included elements of the disaster in their screenplays. Good big budget 30s style films that always were shown on TV years ago.

I'm stunned that you did include the GREATEST DIRECTOR of ALL TIME: David Lean.

Going back to movies' earliest beginnings an honorable mention -- at the very least -- should be made of pioneering French film director Georges Méliès, who really started it all in my opinion. For who can ever forget his classic A TRIP TO THE MOON, which might've been the first true sci-fi flick ever. He was also the first to introduce horror to film with his LE MANOUR DU DIABLE (1896). Concepts we all so take for granted in film today he was the first to introduce. To think of. He also did a memorable film about a trip to the sun which has this great scene where right after the "astronauts" land on the sun and begin walking around, it's so hot they're forced to immediately take their suit jackets off and begin fanning themselves. A true classic! And probably meant to be taken serious at the time.

Meantime, regarding David Lean, despite the unquestionable greatness of his LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, etc., I personally think his best achievement was with GREAT EXPECTATIONS (1946). He directed that movie so excellently that I feel he actually well outdid the Dickens book. And when we're talking Dickens that ain't easy! But oh, the way he handled Miss Havisham, the convict, Pip, the blacksmith, etc., it's truly one of the most perfect films ever made if you ask me.

The first director honored by the American Film Institute for his body of work was William Wyler.I love Alfred Hitchcock and I do think he was one of the best directors of all time but he made one type of film where directors such as William Wyler and Billy Wilder made many great films in different genres.In the industry William Wyler,Billy Wilder and John Ford are always among the top five.I also look at the number of films made and the length of a career. I always thought Orson Welles burnt out early in his career he was never able to match Citizen Kane even though its considered by many to be the greatest film ever made, not my personal favorite.I do have to mention the great comedy director Preston Sturges who directed "The Lady Eve" one of the greatest comedies ever made with Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda. I have to mention the great Frank Capra who directed "It Happened One Night" and "You Cant Take it With You". I think the two greatest Musicals of all time was "Meet Me in St Louis directed by Vincente Minnelli and "Singing in the Rain" directed by Gene Kelly and Stanley Donan.The Golden Era of Hollywood produced so many great directors where today there are very few.brucec

I wonder, 100 years from now, what directors working today will be considered among the greats? Clint Eastwood, certainly the finest director working today. Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg will also be on the list. Oliver Stone? Roger Corman? Sydney Pollack? Barry Levinson? Interesting question.

Unfortunately, in 100 years, the truly legendary directors just may end with greats like Spielberg, Scorcese and Stone. Although I must give deserved credit to Steven Soderbergh, there is not one director in the last 10 years (in my opinion) who has developed a body of work that I would say will define the history of cinema in the next 100 years. Future generations of film lovers will probably find themselves saying, "Hey, how about that Michael Bay? He really knew how to blow sh*t up, didn't he!"

I saw Hitch's PSYCHO on opening day in Philadelphia...the same day it opened only in NY, Boston, Chicago, and the LA area. Other than JAWS more than a decade later, and THIS IS CINERAMA, a few years earlier, have I ever seen grown adult men (and ladies) actually get up out of their seats and run out of the auditorium. I kid you not.

To me there'a no question that a hundred years from now Roman Polanski will stand out as having been one of the greatest directors of today if not THE greatest. And James Cameron might well prove to be another. (Regarding him it's too soon to say yet.) But Polanski definitely. Rob Reiner is another who comes to mind, and Ron Howard quite possibly. Spielberg and Scorcese and Copella will get a great deal of credit, but not for all their work. Others, such as Lukas and Tarentino, I expect to fall totally flat.

Meantime, how I measure a great director, it's NOT by the number of films they made. If so, I would never have picked Elia Kazan as my favorite director of all time. It's great when a director can be credited with having made a long list of good films. But one great film far out-merits a hundred good ones. And a thousand lousy films, of course, counts for nothing. But the big score is to make that one great film in my opinion. And if the director in question makes a lot of good films in addition to that, fantastic! But having made that one great film is essential to qualify as the greatest director of all time in my book. And the greatest director of all time can be one who made ONE GREAT FILM and nothing else. Which was why I put Kazan ahead of all the others. For what he expressed in ON THE WATERFRONT was not only great when he made it, but continues remaining relevant. It is the quintessential David & Goliath story that must be told again and again and again until the great day comes when it no longer has to be. And that day hasn't arrived yet. (At least not permanently.) While in terms of telling this story, I don't think anybody has ever topped Kazan with what he did with that film, or ever can -- while let me remind everyone that without the triumph that film depicts being replicated in actuality, we can't have the great Alfred Hitchcocks, the great David Leans, the great Victor Flemings, the great Frank Capras, the great John Fords and so forth. We end up with George Lukas or Quentin Tarentino or Lina Wertmuller or Michael Cimino being shoved at us as "great" instead. And not that those directors don't have their good merits. They do. But they're not great. Anyway, that's my take on it.

Great is in the eye of the beholder and it's fascinating to see how changing tastes over time can alter who is "great". I submit to you that Buster Keaton is now considered by many to be the greatest silent clown when not long ago Chaplin had that distinction. My personal favorites, Leone and Peckinpah, both had small bodies of work and both made lesser films but in the end even the worst of them are better than the best from many. OK, let's forget "Convoy". Both Leone and Peckinpah were wildly underrated in their lifetimes, at least in the U.S., because the best of their films suffered butchering by the distributors. Even Hitchcock made a stinker now and then (tried sitting through "Torn Curtain" or "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" lately?).

Also, just as a body of work doesn't have to be large, awards also mean nothing. Scorsese just won his first. Hitchcock and Kubrick never won directing Oscars yet Mel Gibson and Kevin Costner have Best Director statuettes on their mantles.

Finally, I did have a brain fart and completely neglected Ron Howard. I believe his body of work will stand the test of time. I also forgot Woody Allen. By the same token, the only Tarantino film that was watchable was "Jackie Brown".

To some degree greatness is in the eye of the beholder. But the greatness Kazan achieved with that one film, ON THE WATERFRONT, supercedes that. For it was on the premise of that film that great films of the past could continue to be seen, and new great ones -- such as MOBY DICK, BEN HUR, THE SOUND OF MUSIC, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, A HARD DAYS NIGHT, EASY RIDER, etc., etc., etc. -- were able to follow after it. So that's why I ranked Kazan as I did.

Meantime, speaking of Woody Allen, who I agree directed some great films which likely will be recognized a hundred years from now, in some instances possibly moreso than now, although Allen didn't direct it (Martin Ritt did), THE FRONT -- which starred Woody Allen -- comes as a reminder that films at the opposite extreme of Kazan's ON THE WATERFRONT are important and needed also. To a large extent ON THE WATERFRONT was an allegory of Kazan's own going before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) during the Red Scare of the early 1950s to testify against some of his Hollywood colleagues. And Kazan became very much hated for that by many in Hollywood and continues to be to this day and since the time of his death. In fact, when he was granted the Academys' Lifetime Achievement Award in 1999, many in the audience refused to give him a standing ovation or even so much as clap, among them such notables as Ed Harris, Nick Nolte and Richard Dreyfus. And though Steven Spielberg did applaud as Kazan accepted the award, he refused to stand up to do so. Others, meantime, such as Martin Scorcese, Robert De Niro, Lyn Redgrave and Warren Beatty, showed Kazan their fullest support. But while there's no clearcut evidence that Kazan's onetime testimony before the HUAC destroyed the careers of any good people in the Hollywood film industry, the careers of many had been destroyed in other instances of its reckless activities nevertheless -- which Martin Ritt's THE FRONT brought to light in 1976. And which needed to be brought to light. I quite doubt that Ritt's THE FRONT at any future date will ever rank higher than Kazan's ON THE WATERFRONT. But it is significant enough a work that Martin Ritt, among so many noteworthy directors past, deserves an honorable mention here at this page if nothing else.

Buff, I agree completely regarding Martin Ritt. "The Front" is one of my all time favorites and especially fascinating to watch as many of the actors actually were blacklisted including Ritt. Allen was perfectly cast but he could not have had the experience to give the film the same quality Ritt did. Ritt is another great who never won an Oscar and had a relatively small body of work including "Hud", "The Spy Who Came in From the Cold", "THe Long Hot Summer" and "Norma Rae". This could be attributed to the blacklisting as much as personal choice. Interstingly his feature directorial debut was "Edge of the City" which also has a waterfront setting.

Thanks for that added info on Ritt! Till now I was only familiar with him indirectly, via having seen THE FRONT, and not realizing he'd made those other films as well. So as you've pointed out, just as it was with Kazan, Ritt actually lived that which he put to film, only in his case he chose not to do so allegorically the way Kazan did. In Kazan's case, I assume Kazan had little choice but to use the allegorical approach given the year ON THE WATERFRONT was made, the Red Scare still so fresh in the air and all. Meantime, it would be interesting to know on what grounds Ritt was blacklisted. In that movie THE FRONT, it's outright scary how so many in Hollywood had their whole careers ruined (blacklisted) for the most trivial, trite things. And Kazan, in a way, I think spoke to that in his film as well, when Brando (as Terry Malloy) got blacklisted from working on the docks simply for one small slight step out of line. And that still happens today of course. Which is why both ON THE WATERFRONT and THE FRONT need to continue to be shown. For as long as that still goes on these two films remain relevant. And now you've got me anxious to see Ritt's EDGE OF THE CITY!

Ritt was blacklisted for past Communist affiliation. He also directed "Casey's Shadow", "Pete N Tillie", "Murphy's Romance", "Sounder" and "The Great White Hope" among others.

Kazan also had past communist affiliation. Fortunately in his case, though, he didn't give money to the Chinese communist party in 1951 as Ritt had. Why Ritt did that I haven't the foggiest idea, while if it had been me even I'd have the hardest time trying to explain that after the fact. And if it seemed like a bad thing then, today the U.S. and so much of the rest of the world is really paying the price hard for the rise of China's communist party in terms of the extended global influence it holds today.

When Kazan was affiliated with the communists it was back at the height of the Great Depression, times were hard, and at the time communism looked like the right answer to many, given how so little was known about it. But by 1951, 6 years after WWII, it was a whole different story. By then, the free world was well-attuned to the truth of communism as it became manifest in the Soviet Union, yet Ritt somehow thought it was the right thing for China? That truly would be a hard one to explain. In Ritt's THE FRONT, he makes the case of the wrongful treatment that was shown to Americans who in their youthful folly dabbled lightly in communism in the '30s when very little was known about it. But from what I can recall he totally skirted around anyone's career having been cut short as a result of their support of Chinese communism in the early '50s, which would be a different matter entirely. For how could anyone justify support of Chinese communism in the '50s and thereafter, on film or otherwise? Thus that one detail was omitted from his THE FRONT. Not to say the points he made in THE FRONT weren't good ones, for they truly were. Very good ones. Which is why I'll continue giving him great credit for that work.

What Ritt or anyone else did is irrelevant. What matters is that no one in a free country should ever suffer because of a political belief. No one. Ever. The entertainment industry was targeted because it was high profile and made sensational headlines. Who cared how many car dealers were communists?

There is a line in "The Front" that does seem to sum up Ritt's history and likely that of others in the cast. It goes something like "We want you to know what you are getting into, Howard. We are not blacklisted because somebody lied about us or made a mistake."

Most people of my generation think of Hitchcock as the one who made movies so thrilling. If he didn't make "rear window", then there would be no "Disturbia". He was a true master, and too bad he didn't live forever...he died more than two years before I was born, and he was the master of suspense, indeed.

To put ourselves back in a 1950s timeframe, Ritt's giving money to the Chinese communist party back in 1951 would be the equivalent of Ron Howard or somebody today giving money to Osama Bin Laden. I'm not saying that anyone should suffer for their political belief. But they should be stopped from financing political beliefs that cause many innocent people to suffer. What if it came out, for instance, that a major American or British film director of the 1930s was a huge financier of Hitler and his Nazi Party? And was so fully knowing the Holocaust would result? For sometimes we really do have to draw a line on how much we're willing to forgive, unless you just want to write off humanity's worthwhile future completely. Worthwhile being the key word. Although I haven't mentioned Hitchcock up until now, I feel his LIFEBOAT made that point excellently. Of the one German passenger aboard that lifeboat, and during the time of World War II, the non-German passengers gave him every single benefit of the doubt they could and then some. And rightfully so, right up until the very moment when it became totally obvious that they all had made a huge mistake. And in today's world what Ritt had done in 1951 -- presuming it was true -- turns out to be have been far more heinous than what it would've seemed like at that time, even with the Red Scare in full swing. Did Ritt foresee this at the time? If not he can be forgiven. But if he supported the mass murder tactics as to be carried out by Mao Tse Tung and others, the tremendous environmental devastation that Mao and other Chinese communist leaders championed and put into practice, so much so to have even helped finance it, how could anybody with any sort of decency or half a brain just totally overlook that? How?

In Hitchcock's THE LIFEBOAT, the great redeeming moment happens when everyone aboard suddenly comes to. And what would have become of them if they hadn't in that dramatic last moment?

Today the whole world is in a very very precarious position because of what has risen up in China -- starting from the 1950s onward. Over 80% of manufactured goods being sold throughout the U.S. today come from China, a country now where slavery and environmental devastation in the course of raw materials production and manufacturing is very much the established norm. And with the U.S. having sacrificed so much of its own domestic production capability for the sake of this dependency, in some cases seemingly irreversibly, how does the U.S. back out of this precarious position now? How? For it's there that Alfred Hitchcock's LIFEBOAT suddenly becomes very relevant to how the U.S. is positioned right now. In our case, though, we're continuing to trust -- and forgive -- when it's clear it's suicidal to do so. I myself, for instance, live in Philadelphia, PA, which once had been one of the world's biggest manufacturing meccas, a major cornerstone of free world democracy when that had been the case. But now, all the manufacturing that once flourished here having gone the way of China, we're about to have two huge casinos plus nonstop flights between Philadelphia and China shoved on us, while every American is being told, "It will all work out fine, you'll see." Or as you, manwithnoname, put it, "What Ritt or anyone else did is irrelevant." But is it? For when it comes to forgiving and forgetting, how naive are we supposed to be? A point which I think Hitchcock in his LIFEBOAT made very well.

Buff, are you actually comparing giving money to Chinese Communists to be the equivalent of giving money to Osama Bin Laden or Adolf Hitler? Two days ago you were denouncing the blacklist and wasn't even aware that Ritt was involved. Today, after Googling him and finding out he was ACCUSED by a Syracuse grocer of donating money, you are damning him largely because it was CHINESE communists, you are upset about your own situation and seem to support his blacklisting IF TRUE. I have far more respect for a Martin Ritt who had the courage of his convictions than for an Elia Kazan who ratted out his friends to save himself. In fact, Ritt and Kazan were associates until Kazan's testimony destroyed that. However, I separate the political from the artistry when it comes to both. You can be sure I am far fron naive.

I don't know what you mean by "upset by [my] own situation." For the crisis the world today faces as a result of a modernday communist China that traces its roots to what happened back in the early 1950s is now the WORLD'S "situation," not just merely mine. And absolutely I place Mao Tse Tung, whose communist party Ritt was accused of helping finance in 1951, on the same plain as Osama Bin Laden and Hitler. Why would any intelligent person not when looking at Mao Tse Tung's record straight on? In fact, truth be said, Mao Tse Tung was considerably worse than those two.

Now as for Martin Ritt, if he was falsely accused, then I fully stand in defense of him. Believe me, I do not support anyone being blacklisted without good cause. Unfortunately, he isn't still around today, as I would like to hear his side to what actually happened back in 1951. Now as for Elia Kazan having "ratted on his friends," no I think you have that totally wrong. He was subpeonaed to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee and required by law to testify, yes, as were many Americans. Such as Walt Disney, Ronald Reagan, Frank Sinatra, and yes, even Martin Ritt himself. But to the best of my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Kazan didn't give any testimony that resulted in anyone wrongfully being blacklisted. Nor did he try to, as appears to have been the case with Cecil B. DeMille, possibly Walt Disney, and most clearly, Ronald Reagan. Kazan's ON THE WATERFRONT, I feel, places everything that happened at that time in the perspective as he saw it. With that said, look at ON THE WATERFRONT itself. We see the lead character, Terry Malloy (as masterfully played by Brando) entrenched in a world, the only one he's ever known, where everything is completely unfair, and to the point that innocent people are senselessly being killed to keep that unfairness alive and well, and this senseless killing adding all the more to the unfairness. Nothing is getting any better, except perhaps for Johhny Friendly (masterfully played by Lee J. Cobb) who's at the top of the unfairness pyramid. Brando tries very hard to go along with what he's told to, but for what purpose?! What sense?! Just so that at the very least he can be the "good guy" who doesn't rat on anyone and go to his pauper's grave with that "satisfaction"? For I have no doubt that is how Kazan saw his own predicament when the Red Scare overswept Hollywood. Kazan had been a communist earlier on in his life. But when he saw how it became when Stalin rose to power, he viciously turned against it, and rightfully -- and redeemingly -- so. He was very fearful of the same horror oversweeping Hollywood, and thus he spoke up when called upon to testify. Not necessarily willingly, but I believe responsibly and principally.

Hands down....JOHN FORD..........!

I like Hitchcock but this survey shows what happens when you are a famous name. He was voted a special Oscar but never won an oscar. Only Rebecca was voted Best Picture of the year. I am still wondering why John Ford was not on the survey he is regarded by industry directors as one of the best directors in the history of film. I repeat John Ford,William Wyler and Billy Wilder are always among the top five within the industry.brucec

I rank John Ford very high, but only for one film in particular, his masterfully directed THE GRAPES OF WRATH. For who else but Ford could've convincingly pulled off showing those Okies going through all sorts of hopeless hardships but then finding their salvation in a government run camp? That would be like trying to make a film about FEMA having perfectly handled the Katrina disaster in New Orleans, as in, "Oh yeah, sure, right!" But giving credit where it's due, in THE GRAPES OF WRATH's case should I be giving that credit to director John Ford? Or to FDR who was the president at that time? With that being such a gray area, it's why I made no mention of Ford till now. Nonetheless it is a great film, and his name is on it as the director. But as great films go, I honestly can't say Ford's other films are in that same league.

As for Hitchcock, he might've topped the list had he not restricted himself to only directing fictional horror, mystery and suspense. For you have to think how high those categories rank over all in comparison to others. And Billy Wilder, who was indeed great, falls short in that all he ever directed was comedy. And unlike how it was with Frank Capra, it wasn't comedy that crossed over into really serious issues. William Wyler scored high, meantime, yet for BEN HUR if nothing else. Wyler's other films showed that he had a range, and that certainly is noteworthy. But, it's a range that suggests his BEN HUR was a fluke. But with Kazan I always found a consistency. And that in my assessment has to be put first and foremost.

Hitchcock, Martin Ritt and Preston Sturges.

Hitch rules! There's no comparison.

If it can be agreed that Marlon Brando was the greatest male actor of all time, would Hitchcock have been great enough a director to have worked effectively with him? For I somewhat have my doubts.

And if we draw up a list of the greatest movies of all time, how many bear Hitchcock's name? And would those movies on that list other than those credited to Hitchcock have been so great had Hitchcock directed them? Perhaps one or two on the list such as CASABLANCA might've been. But I'm so glad that Kazan directed ON THE WATERFRONT, Fleming directed GONE WITH THE WIND, Wyler directed BEN HUR and so on.

Hitchcock was great. But his range was narrow. He could not do well when it came to the really big topics. So your right in that sense, JodarMovieFan. There is no comparison.