Variety blogger Anne Thompson evaluates the list at Variety:
EW loves lists like this one, the top 25 active directors, designed to inspire healthy debate. Did they get it right? And what do they mean by active, exactly? "Most talented, in-demand directors behind the camera today?" They're trying to have it both ways--it's a power list measuring fame, heat, influence and at the same time, a qualitative measure of talent.
Sorry, while I get why these guys are listed, their order does not compute. Where's Oliver Stone? David Cronenberg? Oscar-nominated Gus Van Sant isn't even in the also-ran Top 50 list, where filmmakers who are female (Mira Nair and Mary Harron but no Jane Campion), past their prime (Woody Allen, Sidney Lumet), documentarians (Michael Moore) black (Spike Lee), or directors of animation (Miyazaki, Stanton, Bird) are relegated. Also not included are Werner Herzog, Paul Verhoeven, Peter Weir or Terrence Malick. Oy. For those who would ask for a woman to be on the Top 25 list, there simply aren't any in this league. I'd like to see Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) get there some day.
These lists (both Top 25 and top 50) are pretty lame. No disrespect to any of the mentioned directors, but so many have been left out and the inclusion of some seem ridiculous, in my opinion. I won't share the specifics of my "issues" with these lists, but do want to bitch and wonder about the criteria by which these directors were chosen for the lists of top "active" directors. Active? What does that mean? I saw a few that haven't done shit for several years, but I guess that they know who hasn't officially retired yet. Sure, I agree with the inclusion of some names, but shake my head at many others. OK, certainly no disrespect intended, but Mary Harron in the top 50?
Posted by: Ray Lee | February 20, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Ray, I totally agree. I just thought it might be an interesting point for a discussion about who are the greatest active directors.
Posted by: Patrick McCoy | February 23, 2009 at 05:14 PM