MovieChat Forums > Brian De Palma Discussion > Tarantino Says: "Brian DePalma is the G...

Tarantino Says: "Brian DePalma is the Greatest Director of His Generation"

posted 2 years ago by ecarle (14979)
28 replies | jump to latest

While surfing YouTube, I found a bit where Quentin Tarantino walks around a video store and picks "the three video tapes he would most want to have on a desert island."

I'll end the suspense:

Rio Bravo(Howard Hawks) 1959
Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese) 1976
Blow Out(Brian DePalma) 1981

..and then QT says, with a mischievous grin "...and of course Brian DePalma is the greatest director of his generation" (or something like that...maybe "best visual stylist" or something.)

So that's QT's take. And who are IN that generation, I wonder?

The 70's guys, I guess. Scorsese. Spielberg. Coppola. Friedkin. I'm guessing.

Well, I don't know.

In the beginning, DePalma made so many movies based on Hitchcock movies (Sisters, Obsession, Dressed to Kill) that SNL did a spoof of him with this narration:

"Once a year, Brian De Palma picks the bones of a dead great director, and gives his wife a job."

QT is on record as not thinking much of Hitchcock (well, he thought Hitch was overrated as a "God" or a "Saint")...and he liked Psycho II better than the original. (Nope.)

But one can see how the young QT would find much more in common with Brian DePalma's blood and sex drenched, R rated product than with Hitchcock's Hays Code oldies like The 39 Steps and Rebecca.

So the Hitchcock influence on DePalma didn't matter at all to QT and he rests his case.

Begs the question, though: is DePalma's work overall better than Scorsese, Spielberg, Coppola and Friedkin?

PS. I know that Tarantino has his haters so his praising of DePalma may be of no real help at all...

[–] kwestmo (4385) 2 years ago

I find this praise to be odd, but then so is Tarantino. DePalma does many things great in his films but seldom makes a great film. The Untouchables and possibly Scarface come to mind as great. I suspect in both cases he had less freedom than usual to "tweak" the script (Mamet and Stone screenplays). Storytelling is not his strong suit.

[–] MartyDeniro (4171) 2 years ago

Lucas is another from that generation. But to answer the question, no.

And it doesn't surprise me at all, b/c QT is also more of a stylist who pieces together from things of the past, as De Palma did with Hitchcock. Yes, I'm no QT film fan, but I find his commentary to be interesting. He cares so little for certain aspects that I think are essential, and loves stuff that I think to be only supportive in a window dressing kinda way.

[–] TheArgentinian (7066) 2 years ago

George Lucas is his contemporary from the 70s

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Psycho II is a solid movie, actually, but better than the original?

I love Tarantino and his movies, but he does strike me as a little bit of a contrarian. He likes the hot takes. I don't see how you rate DePalma above the likes of Scorsese.

[–] Interlepos (1807) 2 years ago

>> But one can see how the young QT would find much more in common with Brian DePalma's blood and sex drenched, R rated product than with Hitchcock's Hays Code oldies like The 39 Steps and Rebecca.

This is a very good point. I have heard Quentin say in many interviews that he hates the 50's and the 1980's. Those are the two worst decades in film, according to him.

Now I can see what he means about the 1980's, since it was the end of 70's type cinema and launched the era of the blockbuster. Although, there were many great films made in the 80's – the director became less important.

But his hate for the 50's is peculiar. In my opinion the 50's is the second greatest decade in film, behind the 70's. There were so many great films made in that decade. And the style of the 50's looks beautiful on screen.

It was also, arguably, Hitch's best decade.

>> Begs the question, though: is DePalma's work overall better than Scorsese, Spielberg, Coppola and Friedkin?

No, it's not. But he made a masterpiece in Scarface (1983). And several stellar films.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

Now I can see what he means about the 1980's, since it was the end of 70's type cinema and launched the era of the blockbuster. Although, there were many great films made in the 80's – the director became less important.

But his hate for the 50's is peculiar. In my opinion the 50's is the second greatest decade in film, behind the 70's. There were so many great films made in that decade. And the style of the 50's looks beautiful on screen.
--
From what I've heard in interviews, QT views the 1950s as a decade of conformity (the same complaint he levels against the 1980s). He finds the films of the time too safe or something. I'm not the biggest fan of 1950s Hollywood, but we're also talking about the decade that saw Hitchcock at the height of his artistic powers, the last years of the classic noir cycle, and the start of major pushbacks against the Production Code (The Moon is Blue, A Streetcar Named Desire, Anatomy of a Murder, and Billy Wilder's movies to name a few). Not everything was as Leave it to Beaver as QT claims.

[–] Interlepos (1807) 2 years ago

Yeah, I know. Problem with that argument is that The Hays Code did nothing to hinder the quality of any of the films made in the 50s.

You mentioned a few. But there are so many films, although they might not be a "pushback against" any code, that there are nothing wrong with: Ben Hur, Sweet Smell of Success, The Long Hot Summer, Touch of Evil, Some Came Running, North By Northwest, A Face in the Crowd, Cat on a hot tin Roof, The Big Country, Bad Day at Black Rock, Rebel Without a Cause, 12 Angry Men, Paths of Glory, Sayonara, On the Waterfront, The Caine Mutiny, High Noon and I could go on.

What did the code actually do? Married people didn't sleep in the same bed. What a loss. I wouldn't add one single curse word to films of the 50's since it wouldn't make any of them any better. At the same time, I wouldn't take out one single expletive from Scarface (1983) either, or from any other R-rated film of the last 40 years.

His beef with the 80's is the loss of the artist (very few of the 70's maverick directors survived that decade. Scorsese, Spielberg and De Palma. Who else?). It became mostly about popcorn entertainment.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

I wasn't trying to suggest the Code made movies terrible? Or maybe you're responding to QT's feelings? (Forgive me-- it's harder to tell these things online compared to in person.)

I love a great many movies from the Golden Age (though I prefer the 30s and 40s to the 50s, just personally)-- I'm simply saying the filmmakers were not all making these safe, conformist movies like QT thinks. Even when the Code was in stronger force between 1934 and 1950, you had great movies that could tackle interesting, even adult subject matter without nudity, cussing, or overt violence.

(Though to say all the Code did was prevent presentations of sex and cursing is a bit on the surface. It was more of a whole moral system in which you could not glorify crime, vice, or any kind of wrongdoing. This could create problems in adapting certain material. But that's a whole other discussion.)

Also, QT did once say he found the 80s overly safe and conformist-- it wasn't just 100% about the rise of the blockbuster. I found an article that discusses it (https://www.thethings.com/why-quentin-tarantino-hates-bill-murray-movies/):

"He claims the 1950s and the 1980s were the worst due to censorship and the rise of political correctness. In the 1950s, this was self-imposed due to the aftermath of WW2. North America just wasn't ready for controversy and edge after the trauma they endured after their fight with the Nazis and Japanese. The 1980s were different, however, according to Quentin. This is because North America self-imposed censorship rules.

"After the '70s when everything was just 'go as far as you can', then, all of a sudden, everything got watered down," Quentin explained to Joe [Rogan] and his audience."

I absolutely don't agree with Tarantino's view on the 1950s-- one, because it wasn't all conformist and two, because as you said (and which I agree with) there were great films still being made. I find that true of every decade, even if I prefer some over others.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

Also, it's weird to me that if the Code is Tarantino's beef with the 1950s... why does that not extend to the late 1930s and 1940s? The Code was implemented in full by 1934.

I remember he once said he liked 1940s noir, but noir wasn't Hollywood's full output in the 1940s. For every Double Indemnity, there were many more musicals, melodramas, historical dramas, and comedies.

In the end, QT can think whatever he wants. I think he's by and large a contrarian-- he seems to take a weird glee in dismissing Hitchcock while praising a Hitchcock acolyte like De Palma to high heaven. It does not shock me that he likes the more on the nose violence of Psycho II over the creeping dread of the original movie-- I don't agree at all, but considering the movies he makes, I would not expect anything else from QT.

[–] Interlepos (1807) 2 years ago

I 100% agree with you (well, mostly) and I 100% disagree with Quentin. Sorry if I didn't make that totally clear.

You make many great points, like this one:

>> (Though to say all the Code did was prevent presentations of sex and cursing is a bit on the surface. It was more of a whole moral system in which you could not glorify crime, vice, or any kind of wrongdoing. This could create problems in adapting certain material. But that's a whole other discussion.)

Yes! this is very succinclty said, and you actually made me think further than surface. It's true that a certain type of film that we saw in the late 60s and of course the 70s could not have been made in the 50s. Then again, a film like A Face in the Crowd is pretty daring for it's time when it comes to the moral of the protagonist.

My problem with Quentin's thesis about the 50s is very simple: there are too many great films in that decade for it to be labeled anything other than successful. The things that bothers him - cencorship and political correctness - is not very important when you are watching 12 Angry Men or Rear Window. What I see are two perfect movies. Not a frame should be touched.

So we have a decade filled with masterpieces and he calls it a failure. Now saying that the 70s were more daring and also had great films (the best actually) then yes, that is true also.

>> "After the '70s when everything was just 'go as far as you can', then, all of a sudden, everything got watered down," Quentin explained to Joe [Rogan] and his audience."

This is somewhat accurate, but he neglects to mention that we also had teriffic films in the 80s. The quentissential 80s film - Back to the Future - is a glorious product of it's time. In addition, we had films like Amadeus. What we didn't have though, was 70s masters like Robert Altman being given money to make his type of films. Instead the studios wanted great directors like him to make their type of films. No more studio backed 3 Women-type films in the 80s.

>> It does not shock me that he likes the more on the nose violence of Psycho II over the creeping dread of the original movie.

This is a perfect example!

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

"It's true that a certain type of film that we saw in the late 60s and of course the 70s could not have been made in the 50s. Then again, a film like A Face in the Crowd is pretty daring for it's time when it comes to the moral of the protagonist."

Absolutely. That film still hits hard, even now. Same with Ace in the Hole-- a brutal, brutal satire. It actually disturbed me so much that I'm reluctant to rewatch it, even though it was one of the best movies I have ever seen. Tarantino is ignoring the gems for a very broad, stereotyped vision of the 1950s as some sitcom-style bland-fest, when that just is not true. Hollywood in the 1950s-- which I too once stereotyped as safe compared to the 20s-40s-- is a fascinating era. You can already sense the tensions that would boil over in the 1960s, both culturally and artistically.

"My problem with Quentin's thesis about the 50s is very simple: there are too many great films in that decade for it to be labeled anything other than successful. The things that bothers him - cencorship and political correctness - is not very important when you are watching 12 Angry Men or Rear Window. What I see are two perfect movies. Not a frame should be touched."

Yep-- neither of those movies need explicit material to be adult or good. I find that true of so many great films of the Code era. Explicitness is not the same as sophistication.

[–] Interlepos (1807) 2 years ago

>> Absolutely. That film still hits hard, even now. Same with Ace in the Hole-- a brutal, brutal satire. It actually disturbed me so much that I'm reluctant to rewatch it, even though it was one of the best movies I have ever seen.

Ace in the Hole – a great film! I saw that film again recently and it is glorious. That last shot with Kirk - when he falls on the floor - is so cool.

>> Tarantino is ignoring the gems for a very broad, stereotyped vision of the 1950s as some sitcom-style bland-fest, when that just is not true. Hollywood in the 1950s-- which I too once stereotyped as safe compared to the 20s-40s-- is a fascinating era. You can already sense the tensions that would boil over in the 1960s, both culturally and artistically.

I could not have said it better myself. His argument falls apart pretty fast when you actually look at the output. I would love to show him a few 50's movies that he has probably never seen. I bet he has seen Ace in the Hole, though. He must have. At least I know it's one of Steven Spielberg's favorite films.

You mention the early 60's. The beginning of that decade - up to about 1962 - is pretty good. Before it started to go a bit bland.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

"You mention the early 60's. The beginning of that decade - up to about 1962 - is pretty good. Before it started to go a bit bland."

The 60s is such a fascinating decade for Hollywood, truly transitional. I consider 1960-1963 leftovers of the 1950s, but by '64, the culture was a-shifting. You still had movies like My Fair Lady and The Sound of Music making bank, but as the decade wore on, those big road show movies tended to be, yes, bland as hell and overcooked. They reeked of desperation. That's honestly a lower point than anything from the 1950s, even if, as always, there were some great Hollywood gems in that rough patch. I would think Tarantino finds the late efforts of the studio system more frustrating than anything from the 1950s... but who knows. He's allowed his opinions and I'm allowed to be baffled by them, I guess lol.

[–] Interlepos (1807) 2 years ago

Yes, the tide of great films kind of ended in 1963. Some dreary spectacles followed, although we also had brilliant epics like Doctor Zhivago. And a few fine musicals.

Like any student of film knows, everything took a turn with Bonnie & Clyde in 1967. But, in my opinion, the edginess of the 70's made it's first heavy footprint with Midnight Cowboy in 1969. And then the greatest decade in film history followed. It's fascinating to talk about this stuff, for sure.

[–] ebhaynz (3688) 2 years ago

I would definitely say Scorsese, Spielberg, Coppola are way better than DePalma. Not so sure about Friedkin.

About Friedkin, he seemed to have 2 or 3 great movies then really not much else. In comparison I think DePalma had very good to excellent movies in 3 separate decades, that ain't easy.

About QT, funny, I only like 3 or 4 QT movies, R-Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Inglorious Bastards, so maybe he's on par with Friedkin? except that almost all of QT movies have been very successful. Kind of a revenge of the nerds guy but hey, he did good.

About Spielberg, I like him as a director who's both and adult and kid at the same time. He seems the same as he was when he was in his 20's directing Jaws. Nice, friendly guy never got caught up in too much off screen drama..at least not enough to turn people off for very long. He didn't even burn his bridge with George Lucas, he should get a Nobel Peace Prize just for that. Jaws and Schindler's List are my faves, I give him great credit for putting in some comic relief in heavy movies.

About DePalma, he seems exceptionally smart, he made very powerful movies I think he wanted to go all out on the violence no matter what the studios told him. Smart, gutsy, and appreciative of the art of filmmaking? Of course, I probably know next to nothing about him but I'd jump at the chance to talk to him for an hour, definitely more than any of these other directors. Scarface alone makes him a living legend God that was fun.

About Coppola, as much as I don't really like the guy I admit he made some great movies, especially Apocalypse Now which has what, 5-10 iconic scenes? Maybe he shot millions of feet of film and is a better editor?? Also a great writer too? Definitely not a guy I'd ever want to talk to but give him credit because he earned it.

[–] kwestmo (4385) 2 years ago

"but I'd jump at the chance to talk to him for an hour, definitely more than any of these other directors. " Me,too.

[–] MartyDeniro (4171) 2 years ago

Or just listen to him talk to you. That's essentially his doc, "De Palma" -- been on Showtime forever.

https://moviechat.org/tt1683048/De-Palma

[–] kwestmo (4385) 2 years ago

I've seen it

[–] spurtle467 (1546) 2 years ago

I'm not even sure whether I'd have De Palma in a top 10 of favourite directors, and I wouldn't say he's ever created a masterpiece either. He's created some good movies, but IMO never ones I'd rate a 9 out of 10.

Just taking Scorsese and Spielberg alone, I think it's almost safe to call them objectively better directors. They have a larger body of work, are critically and commercially more successful, have been more influential in cinema, and have greater longevity having created successful and critically revered movies in 5 or more decades. De Palma has 3 decades max. Even if you prefer his movies you should acknowledge there are better directors. It's the same with The Beatles and Rolling Stones.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

There is a "connecting line" from Hitchcock to DePalma to Tarantino that links them together and kept them out of full Oscar consideration, and it is this:

They all made or make genre movies in which people are murdered.

Except from The Wrong Man in 1956, I think there is a murder in every Hitchcock movie from Saboteur on. Oh, maybe Rebecca has one(of Rebecca?) and maybe Suspicion does, but we don't know, but after that point, somebody gets killed eery time (in the 30's, Hitchcock made a few "non-murder" movies like Waltzes from Vienna and Rich and Strange, but he wasn't Hitchcock yet.)

DePalma made a couple of comedies before turning to Hitchcock and murder with "Sisters"(1973) and I believe that all of the rest of his movies have murders EXCEPT his prestige flop, The Bonfire of the Vanities.

With QT, its been crime films rather than Hitchcock thrillers, plus two Westerns, plus one WWII war movie but...murder most foul takes place in all of them. Even the otherwise amiable and comic "Once Upon a Time In Hollywood" finally brings on the Mansons and blood at the end.

And thus, Hitchcock, DePalma, and Tarantino got to BE great stylists on film(you can do that with murder movies) but rather looked down on at the Oscars -- EXCEPT for Tarantino. Surprise! Two Best Screenplay Oscars (Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained) three Best Suppporting Actors (Chris Waltz twice, Brad Pitt), Morricone.

Meanwhile, Scorsese and especially Spielberg only occasionally make thrillers and often do serious work (New York New York, Raging Bull, The Last Temptation of Christ, The Age of Innocence, Silence; The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Amistad, Schindler's List, The Post, Lincoln.)

So "best of a generation" probably means different things to different people. Hitch, DePalma and QT know how to make the big money -- kill people. Whether or not that makes them "lesser" directors -- the debate continues.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

"So "best of a generation" probably means different things to different people. Hitch, DePalma and QT know how to make the big money -- kill people. Whether or not that makes them "lesser" directors -- the debate continues."

The Oscars hate genre pictures and are willing to dismiss quality work if it isn't "Important" or "Culturally Relevant." It's a great reason why I can't take that awards show seriously (their belittiling animation is another).

It's rare for them to celebrate "thriller" or "horror" work. Rare exceptions are the 1932 Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (Frederic March won Best Actor) or The Exorcist, which I guess had some level of artsy seriousness in its spiritual themes and brooding tone, so the Academy could keep its dignity intact by nominating it.

At any rate, it is true that Hitchcock is a kind of spiritual grandfather to those other two directors. De Palma willingly took on the Hitchcock successor mantle, while Tarantino is a bit snide about Hitchcock, though no one working in films can ever truly escape his influence. I remember in college a film professor told me Hitchcock was basically the department's equivalent to Shakespeare: Hitchcock is just so influential and so discussed among filmmakers and scholars, you just cannot escape him.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

"So "best of a generation" probably means different things to different people. Hitch, DePalma and QT know how to make the big money -- kill people. Whether or not that makes them "lesser" directors -- the debate continues."

The Oscars hate genre pictures and are willing to dismiss quality work if it isn't "Important" or "Culturally Relevant." It's a great reason why I can't take that awards show seriously (their belittiling animation is another).

--

Yes, I'm afraid Oscar history is rife with "serious message films" being awarded over more exciting "cinematic work. its like the "Rotary Club Annual Dinner" of movie art.

"Genre movies" is exactly what the Academy often rejects, but I wanted to get a bit more specific about Hitchcock, DePalma, and QT as makers of "movies in which people get murdered." For instance, a war movie is about violence and conflict, but not usually a thriller. That said, in "Inglorious Basterds," QT gave us a scene of a woman being strangled to death that was as much a horror thriller scene as a war scene.

Westerns have people resolving personal and professional conflicts by shooting at each other until someone dies --perhaps that's another aspect of "genre" -- violence ends all disputes, all negotiations. And again, QT added elements of murder and horror to the killings and tortures in Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight. He went BEYOND Western traditions...with nods to the "violent Westerns" of The Wild Bunch and the Leone pictures.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

It's rare for them to celebrate "thriller" or "horror" work. Rare exceptions are the 1932 Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (Frederic March won Best Actor) or The Exorcist, which I guess had some level of artsy seriousness in its spiritual themes and brooding tone, so the Academy could keep its dignity intact by nominating it.

--

Yes. Though I think by the time The Exorcist came around, some "Old Hollywood" deadwood had been cleared and nominations could come for horror from a new generation of voters. And more crucially, at least one big win: Best Adapted Screenplay for The Exorcist.

Jaws won Best Score for John Williams' famous "locomotive chugging" of a shark theme and it made me feel good and it made me feel sad...because Bernard Herrmann's even MORE famous "screeching violins score" for Psycho(1960) was never even nominated. Had Psycho been made in the 70's(or later decades) it would have gotten a lot more Oscar love (but then, it wouldnt BE Psycho -- which is a creature of the 50s/60s cusp.)

Weird: in 1975, Jaws got nominated for Best Picture, but Spielberg did NOT get nominated for Best Director for Jaws. in 1977, Spielberg got nominated as Best Director for "Close Encounters" but the movie did NOT get nominated for Best Picture(something about the head of the studio being a crook.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

I always saw the early 90s as when horror and thrillers really got their due from the Academy: in 1990, Kathy Bates won for playing a psycho in "Misery." In 1991, Anthony Hopkins won for playing a psycho in "Silence of the Lambs." Hopkins beat Robert DeNiro, who played a psycho in Cape Fear(a remake of a movie for which Robert Mitchum was NOT nominated for the same role in 1962.) And of course SOTL swept Picture, Actress, Director, Screenplay...

But the 90's were great for thrillers and crime movies in general. QT hit in the 90s with Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown. There was Misery and Silence of the Lambs and Cape Fear(directed by Scorsese shadowed produced by Spielberg.) And there was Se7en , and a creepy little number called Copycat(with Sigourney Weaver and Holly Hunter prestige stars for a sick story about a psycho who commits copycat murders in the ways of Son of Sam and Jeffrey Dahmer, among others.). There was Fargo -- heartless violence and people with funny accents(and a Hitchcockian streak of dark comedy.) And the period crime epic LA Confidential (my fave film of the 90s.)

And Mr. DePalma was active on the thriller side in the 90s, too. Raising Cain was another Hitchcock "homage"(Psycho); Carlito's Way had a great script, a great cast, a great score, a great final chase and plenty of style. Superstar Tom Cruise gave DePalma the gift of the first Mission Impossible(DePalma's final major hit.) And Snake Eyes (1998) had a pretty great first 2/3 (with a Rear Window/Rashomon look at an assassination during a big boxing match in Atlantic City), but fell apart with a re-shot ending.

I guess I'm saying that the 90s saw a renaissance of genre thrillers and Oscar voters saw their way clear to give a few wins to them. But many of the directors of these thrillers -- Demme and the Coens and Curtis Hanson -- left the genre work for other types of movies as well.

And Oscar could NOT see their way clear to award Best Picture to Pulp Fiction or Fargo or LA Confidential...or Robert Forster in Jackie Brown.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

At any rate, it is true that Hitchcock is a kind of spiritual grandfather to those other two directors.

---

Yes...you can find Hitchcock visual STYLE in all sorts of movies, he was certainly influential across the board.

But only a few directors have chosen to carry on his mantle of doing ONLY genre pictures.

---

De Palma willingly took on the Hitchcock successor mantle, while Tarantino is a bit snide about Hitchcock,

---

and yet Tarantino probably shows as much Hitchcock influence as anyone, he just won't admit it:

Thrillers with great scripts and great dialogue. QT writes his own; Hitchcock commissioned them.
Pulp Fiction: A star dies early(but comes BACK); Bruce Willis sees his boss Ving Rhames through a car windshield as Janet Leigh saw HER boss.
From Dusk til Dawn: One story suddenly (on a dime) switches into another story entirely.
Four Rooms: QT's segment is about people trying to re-enact the Hitchcock episode "Man from the South."
Death Proof. A charming serial killer. One movie with two separate parts(in a project designed as a "double feature" with ANOTHER movie.)
Inglorious Basterds: A climax during a movie screening mimics Hitchcock "theater set climaxes" (Albert Hall in The Man Who Knew Too Much; the ballet in Torn Curtain.) (Hitchcock actor Rod Taylor is in this movie.)
The Hateful Eight: The coffee poisoning scene plays like Hitchcock to me (Hitchcock actor Bruce Dern is in this film, as he was in Django Unchained>)
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood: The climax with the Mansons has that "Hitchcock build of suspense."
--

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

though no one working in films can ever truly escape his influence. I remember in college a film professor told me Hitchcock was basically the department's equivalent to Shakespeare: Hitchcock is just so influential and so discussed among filmmakers and scholars, you just cannot escape him.

--

Agreed on all points.

But...most critics never were willing to agree that Hitchocck was the best director of HIS generation. They'd always put guys like Ford and Hawks and Capra and Kazan and Wyler and Wilder above him. Which time has proved was the wrong call. Modern directors copy Hitchcock if they copy anybody.

I think it was some prestige French director like Godard who wrote:

"During the years the four movies Vertigo, North by Northwest, Psycho, and The Birds were released in a row...Hitchcock was the most famous man in the world." Not the most famous director. Not the most famous artist. The most famous MAN.

Ah...maybe.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

But...most critics never were willing to agree that Hitchocck was the best director of HIS generation. They'd always put guys like Ford and Hawks and Capra and Kazan and Wyler and Wilder above him. Which time has proved was the wrong call. Modern directors copy Hitchcock if they copy anybody.
--
In terms of most influential, definitely Hitchcock, but Ford's influence cannot be denied either. A great many directors working between the 40s and 70s were heavily influenced by Ford. And these people influenced others, so Fordian DNA does flourish, even if people aren't aware where the influences come from.

[–] ccr1633 (1523) 2 years ago

I don't think De Palma has made a single great film. For this reason alone he should be out of the running for the "greatest" director of his generation. "Blow Out" is probably his best, but like many of his films from that period it was marred by the unconvincing performance of Nancy Allen (then De Palma's wife), who in my view has always been a terrible actress. If we're sticking to the 1970s, I don't see how anyone could pick De Palma over Coppola. Coppola had a run of 4 great movies - The Godfather I/II, The Conversation, Apocalypse Now - that includes 3 of the best films ever made, films of epic scope. I'd guess that Tarantino views De Palma through the lens of a fellow director and probably sees technical aspects to his directing that fly over most of us. That said, I must give props to De Palma for "Phantom of the Paradise," a wildly entertaining and insane film even by early 70s standards.