Pop Culture Bracketology: Film Directors first round discussion and results

Below is the discussion that took place via e-mail between WEEKEND staffers over the past few days concerning our Film Director bracket (note: grammar/style is conversational, and less "correct"). Then below that are the results!

Round two discussion begins today.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cory Barker: Hopefully you've looked at the bracket and are ready to discuss some Director match-ups. So let's hear some discussion: who has some upsets in the first round? Remember: reply to all so we can all see your thoughts.

Doug Evans: I gave Mike Nichols the upset over Clint Eastwood because Nichols concern for thoroughness outweighs Eastwood's drive for productivity. Sure, Eastwood churns a movie out every year if not 2, but his films rarely surprise. Nichols made the Graduate, one of the best movies ever made, that challenged the moral fabric of the 60s. It was so taboo when it came out my grandma wouldn't let my 16 year old mom see it, and there was not even a single shot with nudity. He has directed films dealing with topics as sensitive as cancer in Wit and brain damage in Regarding Henry, and then shocked audiences all over again with Closer, which gave me more nightmares than any horror film ever has. Nichols gets the upset.

If not for Oliver Stone's recent flubs (World Trade Center, Alexander), he would have easily upset Sydney Lumet. His Wall Street sequel will either make or break him at this point in his career.

Robert Rodriguez scores an early upset over Ridley Scott due to his ever-progressive style, willingness to collaborate with other filmmakers and attack unfamiliar material, and the fact that he writes most of his own scores. He is the complete package and he is the epitome of a self-made director (he funded his first film with $7000 he raised by spending a month as a research subject in a medical facility). Not to downplay the creator of Alien, Blade Runner and Thelma & Louise, but personally, American Gangster and most of his collaborations with Russell Crowe did not do it for me.

Finally, the most monumental upset of them all (I know I'll get shit for this but I don't give a shit): Guy Ritchie over Avatar Cameron. Don't get me wrong, Terminator 1 and 2 are two of my favorite films of all time, but until this past year the guy hasn't done jack shit in the last 12 years. And don't tell me he was hard at work on Avatar for 12 years. He was sitting around in his house jacking off to his Titanic Oscar. Cameron has become all about style over substance, and even though Guy Ritchie made one of the worst pieces of shit ever (Swept Away), he still beats Cameron in overtime thanks to his early hits Snatch and Lock Stock and his recent resurgence with RocknRolla and Sherlock Holmes.

CB: Whoa, Rodriguez over Scott? I don't doubt RR's "total package" talent, but has he made a really good movie yet? I really liked Planet Terror, but it's uneven; Once Upon a Time in Mexico is a mess, Spy Kids series is what it is -- and then Shorts. Meh.

I don't love Avatar, but Guy Ritchie? REALLY?

Perhaps some of the most interesting match-ups:

Reitman v. Baumbach
Polanski v. Boyle -- Has RP done enough lately?
Jackson v. Bigs -- Is Peter Jackson really that good of a director?

Brad Sanders: Jackson really is that good of a director, I think. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is obviously his shining moment, but his low-budget schlocky horror films from the 90s were great, King Kong made a CGI main character not only watchable but sympathetic, and revolutionized that look before Avatar ever came around, and his stab at good old-fashioned classy film-making last year didn't do as well as expected but was still pretty damn good.

Also, I'm gonna throw a couple of upsets out there:

Gilliam over Van Sant. Terry Gilliam is one of the greatest directors of all time and even though he hasn't exactly proved it lately (The Brothers Grimm was a misstep) it's unfair to make him a 9 seed, let alone to knock him out of the first round. This is the guy who gave us the Monty Python flicks, Brazil, 12 Monkeys, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and others...no way he loses to Van Sant.

Also, Ang Lee over Wes Anderson. Wes Anderson has never made a good movie. He's just made pretentious movies. Hulk was terrible, but Crouching Tiger and Brokeback Mountain are better than any of the white bread hipster crap that Anderson has ever made. Lots of bias there, but I just don't think Wes Anderson is a good director, at all. Maybe someone who agrees can articulate it better.

DE: You clearly haven't seen El Mariachi. Sorry Cory, you're wrong :(

CB: I actually own it. It's fine, but that was years ago. One good movie a career does not make. 

Yeah I mean I wanted to love Once Upon a Time, but it's a mess. Desperado is a fun movie and El Mariachi is great for its budget, but I feel like he's more style than substance. Which brings me to M Night, who I think is a total fraud. Thoughts?

BS: Total hack. Does anyone even like The Sixth Sense as much as its reputation would make it seem? That's the only one worth commenting on and it's not great, and the rest of his movies are almost uniformly bad. Not to mention his name has become synonymous with "eye-roll worthy plot twist". I love Avatar (The Last Airbender, not the one with blue Native Americans), but I'm nervous that he's going to ruin even that.

Speaking of ruining things, Zack Snyder makes it out of the first round and I quit.

Brian Marks: I would agree with Gilliam surpassing Van Sant, as much as I like Van Sant.

Completely disagree with Ang Lee over Wes Anderson. Ang Lee had some great movies (Ice Storm, Crouching Tiger, Brokeback Mountain) but I think his last two movies kinda fizzled out. Lust, Caution was marketed just for its NC-17 rating, and Taking Woodstock was the biggest mistake he's ever made. A Woodstock movie where the music isn't a big element of the story? Demetri Martin needs to stick with drawing- and music-based humor.

Wes Anderson, however, has been nothing if not consistent. Rushmore and Royal Tenenbaums are modern classics, and even the movies that didn't sell as well (Life Aquatic, Darjeeling Limited) showed an evolution.

He made it acceptable to make smart comedies again. And I think it's unfair to label him as a hipster, then dismiss him. He started most of the hipster shit that people love, and that's really on the periphery of his films anyway. I hate to sound too passionate about his films, but I think he gets a bum rap - people see or skip his films because of him, not the actual films. That's a shame. I'll step off my soapbox now.

BS: I've seen all his movies except Fantastic Mr. Fox, but I just don't like him. Oh well, Ang Lee. Maybe you shouldn't have ruined Hulk. Then people would like you more.

Brian Welk: I've got a lot to respond to. I'm going to try and address most of the things that have come up.

From the beginning: Clint over Nichols. Nichols is a legend, but so is Clint, and he's owned this last decade. Nichols had Charlie Wilson's War.

Lumet over Stone.

Scott over Rodriguez for sure. I very much like everything Scott's done this decade including American Gangster and especially Black Hawk Down. Rodriguez has made too much shit and mediocrity for me to consider him.

Cameron over Ritchie. I have to revisit LSTB and Snatch, but Holmes sucked, and I'm not in the mood to argue why. And Avatar didn't.

Jackson over Bigelow. I haven't seen enough (or any) of Bigelow's movies besides "Hurt Locker," and aside from LOTR, I really did love at least two hours of King Kong despite how bad Lovely Bones is.

Gilliam over Van Sant. Close one, but Brazil and Twelve Monkeys?

Ang Lee over Wes Anderson.
Okay, now I by no means dislike Wes Anderson. I enjoy his movies well enough, but I will say there's something I find unauthentic about a handful of them. I definitely don't see them as the masterpieces some people have described them as. Crouching Tiger is fantastic, and Brokeback is good too (I gotta watch it again, see if it I like it a little more), and I didn't even hate Taking Woodstock, despite the flaws people have mentioned.

Burton over M Night. Okay, we can debate whether M Night is a good director until the cows come home (although I feel it wouldn't take that long to agree he sucks), but are we really considering giving him anything over Tim Burton? Edward Scissorhands and Sweeny Todd are masterpieces, and despite the failure of Alice in Wonderland, a lot of his others are great too.

Also, I think the ones that may cause some discussion are:

Miyazaki over Soderbergh. This was a really tough pick. Almost no one has the resume of quantity over the last 10 years as Soderbergh does, and many of those films are of equal quality, but I adore Miyazaki. Ponyo is maybe my least favorite film of his, but it still is excellent. Aside from that, I can't hear from anyone who's willing to defend Ocean's 12 or 13.

Jonze over Lynch. Again, maybe the bias is showing here, but each of Jonze's three films are masterpieces (obviously people may dispute WTWTA), and frankly, I disagree that Mulholland Dr. and even Blue Velvet are the masterpieces they have attained the reputation of. They are visually remarkable films, but overly odd, complex and disturbing for their own good.

Forster over Apatow. Another close one. Wasn't a fan of Quantum of Solace, and I can't say I'm the hugest Forster fan, but Monster's Ball is something special, and I would say Finding Neverland, Kite Runner and Stranger than Fiction are all equally unique films. As for Apatow, Funny People was somewhat of a disappointment, and for how much I like and will watch Knocked Up and 40-Year Old Virgin, I don't think I would ever put them on some kind of list as great films.

BS: I can get behind a lot of that, but there's no way Lynch gets knocked out of the first round. None of his movies are particularly re-watchable but he is one of the most important writers/directors of all time, from his short films to Eraserhead to The Elephant Man to Twin Peaks to Mulholland Dr.

He consistently challenges the viewer. I like Jonze too and I don't like that they're stuck in a first-round match up together, but if they have to be, then Lynch is more than deserving of the title. If you ask people to name a surreal, bizarre director, he's the name they come up with. That's worth something.

And I think Apatow might have to beat Forster simply because the last half of the decade from a comedy standpoint BELONGED to him. Could we even name Seth Rogen or Paul Rudd without him?

Kate Colvin: Has anyone debated Boyle vs. Polanski yet? I think Boyle deserves it, although I'm going to go ahead and acknowledge a bit of a bias because I think that Rosemary's Baby is among the most overrated horror films of all time. The Pianist was beautiful, certainly, but I don't feel like it's enough to outweigh 28 Days Later, Trainspotting and Slumdog Millionaire, all of which were brilliant. Even Shallow Grave and Sunshine, lesser films overall, were more entertaining than the infamous Baby.

Burton definitely deserves it over M. Night Shyamalan. It's just unfortunate that M. Night's best film, The Sixth Sense, is probably his most well-known, while one of Burton's best, Ed Wood, is his least well-known. He may have made some missteps, but his track record easily outdoes Shyamalan's.

I tend to agree about Ang Lee over Wes Anderson, but I've only seen a few Anderson films, so I'm not really going to try to argue it.

And yeah - if Zack Snyder beats Sam Mendes, I'm going to go cry in a corner.

DE: I wonder, Cory, if your seedings were randomized. It is becoming clear that since we are not certain whether to base our picks on number of recent successes (or even how far back to venture), quintessential films, or a director's full body of work, this is more of an opinionated argument. So...

I completely agree with Brad. There is no director in film history like David Lynch. If he loses to Spike Jonze, who despite directing Being John Malkovich - one of the most creative movies ever - puts Wes Anderson's hipsterism to shame, there is no God.

Anderson or Lee, take your pick, but Woodstock was the biggest sham of last year.

B Welk, I'll acquiesce to your Eastwood pick even though he has directed as much crap (Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil; Space Cowboys; and Invictus, which was a glorified piece of shit) as he has gems (Million Dollar Baby; A Perfect World; Unforgiven), even though The Graduate knocks any one of those on its ass (see it).

But I highly doubt you missed opening weekend of Sin City. And if you haven't seen El Mariachi or From Dusk til Dawn, you should see them before you trash Rodriguez. In terms of the great war movies, Black Hawk Down is mediocre at best, and in terms of the great gangster films, American Gangster won't be found on any credible reviewer's top gangster films of all time list.

But I did find both of Guy Ritchie's great films (Lock Stock; Snatch) on several of these same lists. More proof that he should be considered for a big upset over the director of Overated-tar (what kind of bracket system in which we have full control would not allow for one big upset; that's lame and unexciting for the reader :)

Perhaps Katie, you have not seen Chinatown, Death and the Maiden, or Oliver Twist, which are all Polanski masterpieces. I'm down with Danny Boyle in a major way, but this is a sensitive pick. You'll have to do better than deride Rosemary's Baby to get my vote here.

CB: BWelk, JB and I tried to hash out the list and seedings. The seedings aren't quite randomized, meaning there is some intention there, but I didn't fret over them THAT much. We're trying to consider who is the best active director right now, so obviously the more recent films -- last 5ish years -- are the most important, with the whole body of work being much less important. That's why I bring up Polanski v. Boyle, just because the former hasn't done that much recently, even if people do like Ghost Writer. Does that clear up the general intention for you?

DE: Good explanation, thanks Cory. It makes a lot of sense, but it does put some directors who haven't been productive lately at a disadvantage. You'd think that would bode poorly for someone like James Cameron. I'm still pulling for that upset.

Max McCombs: Some thoughts:
 
Cory read my mind on The Village and The Happening. Never has a movie left me as pissed off as the Village, and the Happening was laughably bad.
 
As for Wes Anderson vs Ang Lee, I haven't seen enough of either of their movies to really speak knoledgebly here, but I did find The Royal Tenenbaums to be pretty overrated. I happened to watch Fantastic Mr. Fox last night, and found it to be utterly delightful, though, but I'm not sire if that's enough to overcome the masterpiece that is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
 
Also, I'd agree with the style-over-substance argument on Rodriguez and take Scott in that one. American Gangster was terrific.
 
Jackson is a no-brainer, I think. LOTR was so huge in scale that he gets major props just for stepping up to the plate there, and I could not have imagined them done any better.
 
I'd agree with Miyazaki over Soderburgh. If Spirited Away doesn't give you the warm fuzzies, you likely have no soul. 

BW: If we are talking last five years (or even ten years in my book), that both changes things and doesn't change things.

First off given what I just said. Eastwood over Nichols. NO FUCKING CONTEST. Doug, I think you're also forgetting Mystic River, Letters From Iwo Jima and the in some ways underrated Flags of Our Fathers, Changeling and Gran Torino.

Next, I would still say Lumet over Stone. Have you seen Before the Devil Knows You're Dead?

Again, Scott over Rodreiguez. Taking the decade into context again, Sin City is overrated, and Spy Kids? Grindhouse? I don't even think Gladiator is one of the best of the decade as many of you all do, so I don't see why this is an issue.

Stanton over Zemeckis. At this point, we can maybe compare the two as animators, and the guy from Pixar would certainly take it.

Maybe Soderbergh over Miyazaki. I'll concede that Spirited Away is as old as '02, whereas Soderbergh has at least had The Informant and an interesting indie-film called The Girlfriend Experience.

Van Sant over Gilliam. I would never say this in terms of anything other than the decade, and I'm almost still having trouble saying it. Milk is great though, and I can't say I've seen Brothers Grimm or Imaginarium as of late.

Jonze over Lynch. So I have to revisit Mulholland Dr., but I don't know if I want to because it fucked my shit up! Jonze may have fucked my shit up too but in a good way, not in a way that made me uncomfortable to watch a lesbian sex scene.

This is definitely heating up, and I'm interested to see how our bracket looks when we get to like the Elite Eight or something.

BS: Yeah, Lynch vs. Jonze is officially this bracket's "Are you kidding me? They play in the FIRST ROUND? I'd put both in the Elite 8" match-up. Just re-watched Mulholland Dr. last night and I'm prepared to give it to Lynch, but Jonze is 3-for-3 and probably a little more relevant in 2010.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESULTS FOR ROUND ONE -- Winners in Bold with percentage of vote

Veterans Region

1. Martin Scoresese -- 100 percent of vote
16. Edward Zwick

8. Woody Allen -- 83 percent of vote
9. Terrance Malik

5. Clint Eastwood -- 83 percent of vote
12. Mike Nichols

4. Roman Polanski
13. Danny Boyle -- 57 percent of vote

6. Sidney Lumet -- 67 percent of vote
11. Oliver Stone

3. The Coen Brothers -- 100 percent of vote
14. David Cronenberg

7. Spike Lee -- 83 percent of vote
10. Michael Mann

2. Steven Spielberg -- 100 percent of vote
15. George Romero

Newbies(ish) Region

1. Paul Greengrass -- 100 percent of vote
16. Jon Favreau

8. Judd Apatow -- 83 percent of vote
9. Marc Forster

5. Pedro Almodovar -- 83 percent of vote
12. Edgar Wright

4. Guillermo Del Toro -- 67 percent of vote
13. Marc Webb

6. Jason Reitman -- 67 percent of vote
11. Noah Baumbach

3. Sam Mendes -- 100 percent of vote
14. Zach Snyder

7. Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu
10. Sofia Coppola -- 57 percent of vote

2. Alfonso Cuaron -- 100 percent of vote
15. JJ Abrams

Indie Darlings Region

1. Quentin Tarantino -- 100 percent of vote
16. Michael Moore

8. Gus Van Sant -- 71 percent of vote
9. Terry Gilliam

5. David Lynch -- 57 percent of vote
12. Spike Jonze

4. Wes Anderson -- 57 percent of vote
13. Ang Lee

6. David Fincher -- 83 percent of vote
11. Michel Gondry

3. Darren Aronofsky -- 100 percent of vote
14. Alexander Payne

7. Steven Soderbergh -- 100 percent of vote
10. Hayao Miyazaki

2. Paul Thomas Anderson -- 100 percent of vote
15. Richard Linklater

Populist Pros Region

1. James Cameron -- 83 percent of vote
16. Guy Ritchie

8. Ron Howard -- 83 percent of vote
9. Mel Gibson

5. Peter Jackson -- 83 percent of vote
12. Kathryn Bigelow

4. Tim Burton -- 83 percent of vote
13. M. Night Shyamalan

6. Robert Zemickis
11. Andrew Stanton -- 83 percent of vote

3. Ridley Scott -- 83 percent of vote
14. Robert Rodriquez

7. Frank Darabont
10. Sam Rami -- 83 percent of vote

2. Christopher Nolan -- 100 percent of vote
15. Martin Campbell

Did anyone get a raw deal? Not enough upsets? Sound off below!