" You have actually argued that he cannot be a great filmmakers on the basis that he has made films that are not great. "Afro_Vacancy wrote: ↑1 week agoIt is not true, in my observation, that Haneke is not considered an elite filmmaker. Perhaps I overstretched by ranking him that high, but from speaking with other film snobs he is always in the conversation as among the very best. You are the first person not to rank him so. To leave aside my own personal experience, Amour is objectively perfect, and won BFI's best film the year that it came out.
Leaving that aside though, you have made a fundamental error in judgment. You have actually argued that he cannot be a great filmmakers on the basis that he has made films that are not great. You are dismissing genius on the premise that there has been failure. That is not valid at all. The great geniuses actually fail more than everybody else.
In contrast, consistency is often a sign of mediocrity, for example Marvel Studios. They've made 20 movies and none of them are loathed -- that makes Kevin Feige the most consistent filmmaker in history. It doesn't make him the best though.
You also miss the point. You can feel free to rank whoever you consider to be the best 5 or 10 filmmakers alive today. Put in your honest opinion. I guarantee you that they will not all be Jewish as was argued by several people here, who actually thought that. In fact, there might be 1 or 2 Jews on it.
None of my favorite filmmakers are Jewish.
I used to play Age of Empires II online. It was a great experience. I was a world-class player at one point Everybody knew who I was.
I'm afraid to think of how badly and quickly I'd be destroyed if I were to log on to steam right now.
I agree with what you're saying but its different to my overall thought that I was trying to convey, to elaborate he doesn't tend to be held as the "greatest" because aesthetically and thematically his films are so different over the past two decades (and often in distinct periods) so most critics tend to gravitate towards specific examples rather than his filmography as a whole. Also specific films are outright hated which is rare for other major critical darlings and a reasonably large number think he is a bore, overrated, overly simplistic in terms of ideas, or just cold and inhuman. I don't agree with any of those on the whole, but he doesn't have mass appeal even in critical circles because his films have a tendency to provoke those reactions. Also in saying all the above this I'm only giving possible explanation for why he's not considered a choice for number one by a majority in critical circles rather than arguing this as a reason why he isn't, separate also to my personal thoughts on him as a director in which I know its not a valid argument that hes made some blunders. He is widely considered a great and likely to be mentioned in a top 5 by many but a minority would likely place him at the top and even many serious critics loathe or are indifferent to him on the whole.
"r. Perhaps I overstretched by ranking him that high, but from speaking with other film snobs he is always in the conversation as among the very best. "
This made me laugh, its often the same case from who I talk to in terms of noob-level uni students who haven't actually seen that much arthouse cinema nor have they researched or studied it in depth. Lars Von Trier and Paul Thomas Anderson being the other two that are consistently mentioned by people who are in the same boat of not being particularly knowledgeable about cinema, but are happy to flaunt the cinephile/film snob title. Obviously that's not an argument against their work because both personally and critically they are considered top-tier, but just as an observation people with broader horizons tend to go for more obscure choices (but do mention these others, while often repeating what I've just said about them being overly mentioned by people who aren't knowledgeable). Also the lesser knowledgeable cinephiles ALWAYS mention Amour which is hilarious, although it is a great film. The more esoteric or emotionally explosive/shocking films tend to do the best in critic and serious cinephile circles: Cache (his most critically successful over the years), The White Ribbon, The Piano Teacher (maybe my favourite) and Code Unknown. Amour being more straightforward and having won the Palme D'or makes it more popular among noobies who don't feel secure in offering greatest praise to something like Cache but want to be part of the herd regardless.
I also agree that in terms of filmmaking there is virtually no discernible Jewish influence beyond their numbers in the population, but there certainly is in banking and news media for example both of which have a hugely more important influence on peoples lives. I don't think there are any Jewish filmakers in my top 20, and Spielberg is the only one I can think of that might be in critical circles and in terms of box office, although he's not seen at the very top echelon of directors among most critics to be honest.