(Part 2) Best directors books according to redditors

There's a 23 pound book called Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon: The Greatest Movie Never Made that contains the script, a lot of his research, correspondence, etc. Also has online access to a searchable online database including Kubrick's picture file of nearly 17,000 Napoleonic images.


I'd love to have on but the used price is: $3,360.00

someone listed a bunch of titles ive read/bought for school a few comments up. try asking around some colleges for students looking to sell back their books after finals!

EDIT: i feel bad for not posting any actual titles i had. this book was awesome, very enlightening. all interview transcripts of steven spielberg regarding movies, various points in time. http://www.amazon.com/Steven-Spielberg-Interviews-Conversations-Filmmakers/dp/157806113X

I bought bruce blocks book before i got into film school, read it, highlighted it while waiting for flights, etc. then, sure enough, one of my teachers assigned the book to us. i felt like a king!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Visual-Story-Creating-Structure/dp/0240807790

same situation with blain browns book. except he eventually taught one of my classes. :P slightly different subject, but it was cool having read a book, then not only meeting the author, but taking his class. :)
http://smile.amazon.com/Cinematography-Theory-Practice-Cinematographers-Directors/dp/0240812093/ref=sr_1_55?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425434291&sr=1-55&keywords=visual+storytelling

There are great recommendations in here, here's a few more, mostly focused on European cult films.

Immoral Tales is a great overview of Euro cult films with chapters dedicated to the films of Jesse Franco, Jean Rollin, Walerian Borowczyk, Jose Larraz, and Alain Robbe-Grilette, as well as chapters that cover a wider territory that feature directors who aren't as well known. It was a pretty eye-opening book and great resource when it first came out (1995) and I re-read it recently and it didn't seem outdated at all. You'll discover a lot of great films to watch flipping through it. It's currently out of print but you can probably find a copy on Ebay for pretty cheap.

For a more in-depth look into specific Euro cult directors, the works of Jess Franco are covered very well by Stephen Thrower. His book Murderous Passions is great but currently out of print and going for dumb money, hopefully they'll do a re-print soon. He has a follow up Flowers of Perversion that is coming out in a couple of months. Stephen has also done great books on Lucio Fulci Beyond Terror and on American cult films Nightmare USA.

Fascination: The Celluloid Dreams Of Jean Rollin and Lost Girls are both pretty great books covering the cinema of Jean Rollin, one of my favorite Euro cult directors. There is another book on Rollin called Psychedelic Sex Vampires, but it's a bust.

Dario Argento: The Man, the Myths & the Magic is very good. There's another good Argento book called Art of Darkness but it is out of print and expensive, but if you are a fan, it is worth it if you can find a relatively cheaper used copy somewhere.

If you like giallo, the So Deadly, So Perverse books Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 are awesome.

If you are in the mood for less reading and more art, Nicolas Winding Refn did a cool book titled The Act of Seeing which has photos of his cult & exploitation film poster collection. It's rad. The publisher of The Act of Seeing, FAB Press, has done so many fantastic books, covering cult films from all over the world.

For magazines, Cinema Sewer is a pretty great current magazine, and you can't go wrong with old back issues of the now sadly defunct Video Watchdog that was run by Tim Lucas, who you might know from his multiple audio commentaries and liner notes.

No shame at all. Honestly, a lot of people I know (including myself) started watching Godard films by just jumping around each decade to get a feel for what all he has to offer. I'd honestly recommend people start watching a mix of his work from different eras — even if a lot of the post-68 films can be alienating at first — because it's likely to cut down the risk of a person just becoming another one of the thousands who only watch and discuss his work from 1960-68. (That horse hasn't just been beaten to death, it's long been vaporized.)

And tbh, Brody's book is actually a good read if you want to get a rundown of facts about Godard's life through his career. If you can look past the near-total absence of criticism in the book (and the really lazy, shallow attempts at it), it's a concise collection of info that's ysually scattered across many sources and a very easy read. Just don't put too much faith in his "interpretations" of Godard's work and philosophical beliefs, or else you'll get trapped into reiterating the same sensational position. It's great for reading in the same way you would a Wikipedia article though, just a much longer and more detailed one, haha.

So for alternative Godard reading, I'd recommend checking out some of these:

• Colin MacCabe has several books covering Godard — including general overviews, specific eras, and philosophies of his work. MacCabe is like the first step-up from Brody: he doesn't turn film criticism into One Fish, Two Fish, but doesn't have an intimidating depth to his commentary. IMO, he's the "lesser of two evils" as an entry point to Godard that will give you great background info as well as stimulate your critical thinking skills a little more than Brody. But please note that the other options following this are likely to be much more satisfying.

• Wheeler W. Dixon's The Films of Jean-Luc Godard should probably be one of the books near the top of your list of great crash courses in Godard's work. He speeds through the parts that Brody/MacCabe sink themselves into like quicksand, and covers a broader scope of ideas.

• David Sterritt's The Films of Jean-Luc Godard: Seeing the Invisible is another great pick if you want a reading-equivalent of the "taste-testing films from each era" approach I mentioned at the start of thise reply. He covers only a small handful of important works from 1960-1990 — including several of Godard's all time bests, like Numero Deux, Nouvelle Vague, and Hail Mary — while giving great supplemental insight on Godard's experiments with the medium (e.g., film vs video).

• Godard himself is another great (or even necessary) option for getting excellent insight. Godard on Godard (whatever the newest edition available is) would be the essential first pick. Also, there are a decent amount of books out there that are just collections of his various interviews — aside from the ones written/published by Godard himself, I mean — and those contain invaluable information. This one covers a wealth of exchanges between him and various people from the 1960s to late 1990s, for example.

There's also a brand new book written by Godard that I've been waiting to get my hands on, but it can be quite expensive... Intro to the True History of Cinema and Television — Currently out of stock on Amazon. Reading Godard's critical writings of other work is also a GREAT way to get insight into how he thinks about things, so those pretty valuable when it comes to your perspective on his work as well.

Make sure not to mistake the Godard books that share his films titles for criticism btw. I'm talking about stuff like this. These are incredible books in their own right, but they're "written cinema", not criticism. (They're not really even screenplays.) But for sure add these kinds of books to your cart AFTER you've gotten a better grip on his work down the road.

• Depending on how academically/theoretically inclined you are, then you should check out some of the "specialized" critical works on Godard. These are easy to spot because the title/descriptions will tell you that they focus on how a select group of his films (or a specific period) relates to or utilizes a particular subject. For instance, again, there's a brand new book that came out this year that's been on my list to buy because it looks very intriguing: Godard and Sound: Acoustic Innovation in the Late Films of Jean-Luc Godard

• LAST BUT NOT LEAST! If you want some very worthwhile, critical, and FREE writing on Godard's philosophy and work, look no further than Jonathan Rosenbaum's website. You can just type in "Jean-Luc Godard" at top in the searchbar, and browse through different articles. Skip the short Chicago Reader, 1-2 paragraph blurb reviews — look for his longform essays. Rosenbaum can get a bit esoteric times, but it's never overbearing (IMO), and serves as excellent time-wasting reads when you're not at home or don't feel like starting a book chapter.

Rosenbaum also has many books on cinema (not free) in general, which are all pretty damn great options — not just for reading about film, but familiarizing yourself with criticism itself and various ways to approach it. Several of his books discuss various Godard-centric topics at length. So see about picking one of those up if you're interested.

They were movies long before the vast majority of the books. The first movie was released in 1977, and there were a few books and some comics besides the ones that retold the movies that were released between the 70's and the 90's, but the Extended Universe didn't really get started until the 90's with the Timothy Zahn novels.

Edit: If you want to know about the making of the original Star Wars trilogy, I highly recommend the book Skywalking, by Dale Pollock.

That is simply not true about American Graffiti.

Coppola was brought on to produce of American Graffiti almost exclusively in name (right after the success of The Godfather). It was Gloria Katz and Willard Huyck who helped Geroge write the humanity present in American Graffiti, which also authentically came from George. Coppola primarily acted as a liaison with the studio and let George and his team do their thing.

Lucas is incredible with story (eg. Indiana Jones), camera/visuals (THX 1138, Star Wars), but he's very weak with screenwriting and directing actors. And he's extremely self-aware and self-conscious about these deficiencies. Check out:

http://www.amazon.com/George-Lucas-Interviews-Conversations-Filmmakers/dp/1578061253/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404425039&sr=8-1&keywords=interviews+with+george+lucas

Link for the curious

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Strain-Robert-Abele/dp/1608874753?ie=UTF8&sf28759847=1

The Coen Brothers, Second Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/1628725664/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_2WD8BbVP1MX78


That one.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blade-Runner-2049-Interlinked-Art/dp/1789092116/ref=sr_1_2?keywords="Blade+Runner+2049%3A+Interlinked%3A+The+Art"&qid=1558990833&s=gateway&sr=8-2

I think this was an academic thing, but it's more of a research than an analisys. http://www.amazon.com/TV-Peaks-Television-University-Southern/dp/8776749061

Reasonable metric for what? There being much to say about his work? I am saying that there are literally thousands of pages of data and critique done on his work. I gave you examples of both his work and professional critique of his work as a place to start. Here is some more information. The man is a living legend, and multiple people telling you this, with examples of his work. If you just don't want to accept that, that is your prerogative.

The Friedkin Connection: A Memoir https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B0089LOLXO/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_HfygDb089H7E2

Maybe Amazon.ca won't work for you...

The quote is from Rebecca Meegan's biography of him, The Futurist.

>I disagree, Sigourney Weaver was coming off of Ghostbusters & the original which were both a successful (Ghostbuster crushed the box office and Alien made $60million by the time it's run ended). You can still make a movie on the cheap with stars if you reduce their front end compensation, but without working knowledge of their deals it's hard to say what happened here. Weaver could have deferred everything to the backend or taken it all up front.

The studio tried to throw Sigourney Weaver off the project. They urged Cameron to write Ripley out of the script because Weaver wanted too much money.

> Relatively unknown director? No. Cameron was just coming off Terminator ($37milBO), Escape from New York & Rambo: First Blood part 2 ($150milBO) which all made money. Aliens was more of a pet project for him (as he wrote the screenplay) so

Relatively unknown? Yes. He was unproven. 'Rambo First Blood 2' he wrote the first draft of the screenplay and that was the end of his involvement. It went through a heavy rewrite. 'Escape from New York' he was DP of special effects, not Director. 'Terminator' was his only "real" credit. Fox predicated his involvement in 'Aliens' on 'Terminator' being a success. Fox actually wasn't interested in an Alien sequel.

Cameron wrote 'The Terminator', 'First Blood Pt 2', and 'Aliens' all at the same time. He actually had to seek financing outside the studios to make Terminator because no studio would buy it with him as director. 'Aliens' was less of a pet project than 'Terminator' by that measure.

The problems Cameron had on the set for Aliens with lack of respect are practically legendary. There's a section about them in the book 'The Futurist' and they also talk about them in the commentary for Aliens.

The 1st AD (Derek Cracknell) had worked on '2001' and 'A Clockwork Orange' and felt he was better qualified to direct the picture. He constantly sabotaged Cameron during filming. Cameron almost had to fire him and talked about moving the picture out of England after Cracknell staged a work stoppage.

Cameron DID fire Cpl Hicks' actor James Remar and replace him with Michael Biehn. Remar actually appears in a few scenes that had already been shot, either in background or from the rear.


> I can't imagine what H.R. Giger cost to employ and use his ideas.

HR Geiger didn't work on 'Aliens' and isn't credited at all.


Sources:

• Wikipedia article on James Cameron
  
• Wikipedia article on Aliens
  
• Article about the book 'The Futurist'
  

Here's the thing though. You aren't a professional critic 100% of the time. He is capable of writing a book about someone, but you also have to look at when that book was written. 2009, the man was retired by then. By then he was talking about movies as a person, not as a professional critic who needed to adhere to professional standards. In fact, in the article I linked he actually stated that he had hoped he could do some of the things that he had forbid himself from doing once he wasn't being a professional.

Here's a better Amazon link, one that shows the book's release: http://www.amazon.com/Scorsese-Ebert-Roger-ebook/dp/B0027VSR6Y.

Also, you never answered any of my questions about the book, which strikes me that you haven't read it either.

In fact, I don't think you even read what Amazon stated about the book:

Roger Ebert wrote the first film review that director Martin Scorsese ever received—for 1967’s I Call First, later renamed Who’s That Knocking at My Door—creating a lasting bond that made him one of Scorsese’s most appreciative and perceptive commentators. Scorsese by Ebert offers the first record of America’s most respected film critic’s engagement with the works of America’s greatest living director, chronicling every single feature film in Scorsese’s considerable oeuvre, from his aforementioned debut to his 2008 release, the Rolling Stones documentary Shine a Light.

In the course of eleven interviews done over almost forty years, the book also includes Scorsese’s own insights on both his accomplishments and disappointments. Ebert has also written and included six new reconsiderations of the director’s less commented upon films, as well as a substantial introduction that provides a framework for understanding both Scorsese and his profound impact on American cinema.

[Post 1/2]
I think that the historical context of imagining the future is a decently important component in the explanation of why the film is great, but by no means the most important or even the most interesting. I also think the tangent into Disney's Epcot could take up ~10s, but the amount of time spent presenting it doesn't really help your argument at all. As presented, literally any movie made with a decently imaginative presentation of the future would be great, and even if 2001 is the best of the bunch, that doesn't explain why it is considered a great piece of cinema both historically and cinematically. No offense intended, but if you want to make an effective video explaining why the film is great you should do your homework.

In my opinion, these points are the best way to explain to a non-cinema oriented person why 2001 is great:
The density and ambiguity of possible interpretations, and the sparsity with which though enormous themes and ideas are presented
The incredible technical and artistic achievements of the film's production
How Kubrick as a director shows through in the film, and how it is an example of truly great directing.

Thematic development:
Kubrick argued repeatedly after the film's release that there was not a single explicit meaning to the film, nor any of its components - despite the literal interpretation given in the contemporaneous novel. From the opening scenes with the apes, we are provoked endlessly to ask what each scene means and how each fits into a larger narrative, but are never given a satisfying answer. The movie feels 'weird' and unnerving because nothing is made clear, but that's precisely why a non-cinematic person should be interested in 2001: they are given agency as a viewer to engage and interpret the movie on their own terms, rather than having the plot spelled out for them as is typical of blockbuster movies. The extended, often near-silent shots give the viewer time to think about what is happening and why it is happening (while also being insanely beautiful, more on that below). 2001 is not, however, contentless: the themes are presented as enormous conceptual archetypes in themselves, rather than being presented within the context of the movie and then extrapolating those to the larger concepts. These themes will always resonate with us: a sharp transition in the course of human history brought about by an unexpected discovery or shift in culture, the relationship between humans and what they create, a sort of bottomless searching that impels us to invent and explore space, etc. People should be interested in this movie because they are interested in the ideas that are both a necessary product of human civilization while simultaneously having a profound influence on its progression.

Production:
Kubrick is notorious for being extremely demanding and precise with his technical vision of his films, and this is, in my opinion, shown most clearly in 2001. Every single shot is exquisitely designed to the finest detail - the set, the position and movement of the camera, the sound, etc. Giving a potential viewer a sense of the incredible depth of the story of the production would let them appreciate those 'quit, slow, boring' scenes so foreign to them as the examples of technical mastery that they are. There are so many good stories of the people involved in the production that you could have told here: Kubrick's consultation with Carl Sagan on the presentation of the alien lifeforms that made the obelisks, the collaboration with Arthur C. Clarke (one of the most prominent science fiction authors at the time and a far better example of the importance of imagining the future than Disney) on the screenplay, the consultation with IBM about HAL, mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the input from NASA and other high-tech companies that made 2001 far more realistic than the other glittery science fiction movies at the time, and the list goes on. There is an entire book on the film's production filled with fascinating photos and stories from behind the scenes that would have worked well here. As a few examples: Kubrick and his collaborator John Alcott studied lighting more deeply than anyone ever had before - studying the way the light worked with the set and the actors such that it looked more convincingly and consistently like natural lighting than most films that had been made to that point. The set of the interior of the Discovery was actually unprecedented: "A 30-ton rotating "ferris wheel" set was built by Vickers-Armstrong Engineering Group, a British aircraft company at a cost of $750,000. The set was 38 feet in diameter and 10 feet wide. It could rotate at a maximum speed of three miles per hour, and was dressed with the necessary chairs, desks, and control panels, all firmly bolted to the inside surface. The actors could stand at the bottom and walk in place, while the set rotated around them. Kubrick used an early video feed to direct the action from a control room, while the camera operator sat in a gimbaled seat." I can't stress enough that that simply wasn't done - Kubrick would invent new ways of directing just so that the shot was closer to his vision. 2001 was one of the first films to effectively use front-projection, or projecting images onto the set from the point of view of the camera, to both animate the set as well as make a more convincing set than the clumsy manual tape-editing techniques that were used to fake a set in a sound stage. The visuals in the final scenes were made with a machine that was invented for the movie - the "Slit Scan" machine being the first adaptation of slit-scan photography to film - allowing the animations in that scene that would otherwise have been impossible. A good demonstration of how that works is here. Kubrick was a genius at solving technical and mechanical problems himself, for example the 'iconic' pen floating scene was done by mounting the pen inside a spinning glass disk rather than suspending it from a thin wire - the dominant technique at the time - and to make the astronauts 'float' he and the crew rigged up an ingenious array of wires and harnesses that allowed the actors to perform naturally while being essentially invisible. Even non-cinematically oriented viewers would be interested by the fact that many of the creative team went on to do the production for later heavily influential and more approachable movies like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Blade Runner, etc. The scenes are only 'boring,' and you only need to sell them as "it's weird but just watch it because it's historic" if you don't understand the massive amount of creativity and work that went into every shot. If you were to have planted in potential-viewers mind the idea that they should be watching every shot to figure out how it was done, or to wonder at the fact that it was* done, rather than telling them to snooze through it, you would have allowed them easier and deeper access to the movie.

Amazon.com entry is offline now; amazon.co.uk still online, updated release date to may 25.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Stanley-Kubricks-2001-Odyssey/dp/3836547694/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1397310757&sr=8-2&keywords=piers+bizony

Only covering the end of Brosnan and Craig's era though.

The James Bond Archives is definitely the book he needs in his life.

https://www.amazon.com/James-Bond-Archives-strip-included/dp/3836521059

Ive had it for a while but no coffee table. Will buy a table just to have this book on it.

I'm seeing a few more on Amazon:

Nov. 8th, Notes on the Cinematograph by Robert Bresson

Nov. 8th, Bresson on Bresson This is NYRB, but not in the 'classics' catalogue.

Bresson directed the great 60's films Pickpocket and A Man Escaped, which have both been released on Criterion.

July 5th, The Continuous Katherine Mortonhoe by D.G. Compton

Walker Percy's The Moviegoer

Images: My Life in Film(Bergman)

The Hammer Story

Beautiful Dark