In relation to (1):
CMonster wrote:1) What if a direct has done so many movies that there are more bad than good, but his best 10 are great. Can it be said that he is a great director or everything other than him came together to make a great movie regardless of directorial talent? With this question in mind to you strongly subscribe to the Auteur Theory? What if the the best direction was actually written in the script?
2) Can a systematic approach such as this truly divine the nature of what makes you feel a director is great? Should your personal favorite be determined by numbers or should you follow your heart/instinct/guy/etc. on such a subject?
If a director has made ten great movies, in my view he is a great director. Very few have done so. Examples I would cite (from my perspective) are Woody Allen, Lars von Trier, Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese. I would also add as an aside that often we try to see the better movies by a particular director rather than the lesser films. As a consequence, for example, I may have seen most of Bergman's best movies, and even though he has an extremely good average over the 22 movies I've seen by him, if I were to see the remaining 29 Bergman movies that Criticker has in its database (including many early ones), no doubt his average would suffer. But he's still a great director, even if those 29 movies were all bombs. The point here is that the average is affected by which
movies we have seen by any particular director, a flaw which remains but is lessened by the Djross Procedure. And I'm not sure that anybody
has in fact directed much more
than ten movies that I would consider "great."
I don't subscribe strongly to any theory, but in a general sense I tend to believe that most of the time nobody is more significant than the director. There are extremely few writers who it seems to me have penned a large number of great movies, unless they also happened to be the director. But the latter is an important point: many of the best directors also wrote most or all of their movies.In relation to (2):
It goes without saying that art is not reducible to calculation, just as artists are not reducible to algorithmic functions (though this has been tried, for instance with Shakespeare). And, of course, critical opinion, too, is irreducible to calculation. Nevertheless, the very premise of this website is the quantification, or perhaps "numericalization," of opinion, and it is a premise that, however limited, makes it possible to play around with numbers in a sometimes diverting way. And I would also add that, even though opinion is not reducible to calculation, it does not therefore follow that "following one's heart" suffices for a worthwhile critical opinion either: to the synthetic viewing experience we ought to apply an analytical apparatus (and some of the best movies force us to do so), and analysis always has something "calculative" about it.
That said, I am always glad when a user who seems to have numerical opinions that are of potential interest, chooses to supplement those with "mini-reviews," and even gladder when effort is expended to make those reviews say something about those opinions in an interesting or writerly way.
As a further aside, I was a little disappointed with FitFortDanga's list: a very interesting list without doubt, from which I can certainly learn much. But it seemed a little over-engineered to me, to the point that it seemed pretty much just the list of this user's favourite directors. I would have been interested to see the outcome if the simpler procedure I outlined had been followed to the T. But hey, that's me.