Your Favorite of the Big Four From the 70s

[GregX]

It is a widely held opinion that Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola are the "Big Four" of the 1970's. Men who, for better or worse, influenced and changed the film industry in their own way.

This is not a "who's the greatest" because, god knows that discussion would never devolve. That can be disputed. No, this is "who's your favorite?" Something less tangible and more personal.

Spielberg is, in many ways, the ultimate commercial director. But, he still manages to crack a truly great one at least once a decade. "Jaws" in the 70s; "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in the 80s; "Schindler's List" in the 90s; and "Munich" in the current decade.

Coppola is legendary for the first two "Godfathers" and "Apocalypse Now" alone. Of course, he has his share of stinkers... like "Jack;" and "The Godfather Part III."

Scorsese has made A LOT of great films. "Raging Bull;" "Taxi Driver;" "Goodfellas;" "Gangs of New York;" "Casino;" "The Departed;" and the controversial "The Last Temptation of Christ." I didn't like his "Cape Fear," though.

Lucas made "Star Wars." And while we may not all like what that became, we can't deny the impact it had and what it originally was.

I of course have to go with my man, Marty. I just love his work. He has way more hits than misses and truly understands the dark and seedy side of human nature.

So, which of these four men is your personal favorite and why?

[Space Cadet]

Spielberg is, in many ways, the ultimate commercial director. But, he still manages to crack a truly great one at least once a decade. "Jaws" in the 70s; "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in the 80s; "Schindler's List" in the 90s; and "Munich" in the current decade.

Saving Private Ryan didn't make that list for you? I agree with Schindler's List though. Always gets me every time I see it.

[GregX]

Saving Private Ryan didn't make that list for you? I agree with Schindler's List though. Always gets me every time I see it.

I liked the beginning of the movie. The rest, didn't work for me. Not sure if I can even explain why, but I'm not a Tom Hanks fan. It's not rational, I have no logical reason. I don't hate him, but I just don't like him.

[JRP82190]

Scorsese for me. The Departed is pretty much my favorite movie and like you said he has way more hits then misses

[Hanshotfirst113]

Man, oh man, what a tough one. I think that I'll have to go with Spielberg in terms of his overall output. Coppola made a string of masterpieces in the 1970s that most director's can't manage in a lifetime (The Godfather, The Coversation, The Godfather Part II, Apocalypse Now), but Spielberg has been wildly eclectic and stylish, breaking all kinds of boundaries, sometimes not even consciously. Coppola is probably the closest in tenor to classical Hollywood brethren. Quiet, low key, almost operatic, he's a rather quiet director in the Godfather films, but still waters run deep, and there's an ocean of emotion and substance beneath the surface of his films. The Godfather movies are about as close to perfection as filmmaking is ever likely to get. Scorsese...ah, what to say? Scorsese, more than almost any other director, is willing to stare the devil straight in the eye, and his virtuoso technique is second to virtually no one. But I think that Spielberg ultimately epitomizes the commercial face of cinema. There's simply nobody who claim a string of hits not only commercially, but artistically. Spielberg misfires sometimes, and badly, but whatever you think of him, he's always reaching. Wild fantasies and dark realistic morality tales, Spielberg always wants to grow as a filmmaker, always wants to stay ahead of trends even as he creates them. But if Spielberg is the commercial side, then it's Scorsese who's the critical darling. Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, GoodFellas, when Scorsese scores, he knocks one out of the park, looking into the darkness of human nature and questioning moral and social codes. He has pretty much zero commercial sensibility (as his disastrous Cape Fear remake shows), and he's virtually unmarketable, but he's a true student of cinema (rent his dazzling documentary), and he epitomizes what it is that's great about the movies: there's something at work in his films. They feel....alive. He's so raw, so energetic, even kinetic, even when nothing is flying around.

[GregX]

I can tell it's tough for you, because you still haven't clicked his name on the poll

[Hanshotfirst113]

I can tell it's tough for you, because you still haven't clicked his name on the poll

Do I have to pick just one ?

[GWOtaku]

I approve of Spielberg. He's hit and miss, but I feel this is because he's a very inventive fellow. He's always trying new things, from Amistad to Saving Private Ryan to sci-fi. When he's bad he's quite bad, but when he's good he's excellent. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade has become one of my favorite movies. Saving Private Ryan was a rather well done war film. The Terminal may not be remembered as one of his great accomplishments, but its one of the better comedies that I can think of. I suppose the diversity of his work appeals to me.

[Michael24]

Spielberg for me. Some misses, sure, but for the most part, he makes the kind of movies I like to watch. Jurassic Park was pretty much the deciding factor in making me decide to pursue filmmaking, and Raiders of the Lost Ark is my all-time favorite movie.

I like Lucas' early stuff, and later Young Indiana Jones, but that's about it.

Never been a fan of Coppola or Scorsese.

[JRP82190]

Man, oh man, what a tough one. I think that I'll have to go with Spielberg in terms of his overall output. Coppola made a string of masterpieces in the 1970s that most director's can't manage in a lifetime (The Godfather, The Coversation, The Godfather Part II, Apocalypse Now), but Spielberg has been wildly eclectic and stylish, breaking all kinds of boundaries, sometimes not even consciously. Coppola is probably the closest in tenor to classical Hollywood brethren. Quiet, low key, almost operatic, he's a rather quiet director in the Godfather films, but still waters run deep, and there's an ocean of emotion and substance beneath the surface of his films. The Godfather movies are about as close to perfection as filmmaking is ever likely to get. Scorsese...ah, what to say? Scorsese, more than almost any other director, is willing to stare the devil straight in the eye, and his virtuoso technique is second to virtually no one. But I think that Spielberg ultimately epitomizes the commercial face of cinema. There's simply nobody who claim a string of hits not only commercially, but artistically. Spielberg misfires sometimes, and badly, but whatever you think of him, he's always reaching. Wild fantasies and dark realistic morality tales, Spielberg always wants to grow as a filmmaker, always wants to stay ahead of trends even as he creates them. But if Spielberg is the commercial side, then it's Scorsese who's the critical darling. Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, GoodFellas, when Scorsese scores, he knocks one out of the park, looking into the darkness of human nature and questioning moral and social codes. He has pretty much zero commercial sensibility (as his disastrous Cape Fear remake shows), and he's virtually unmarketable, but he's a true student of cinema (rent his dazzling documentary), and he epitomizes what it is that's great about the movies: there's something at work in his films. They feel....alive. He's so raw, so energetic, even kinetic, even when nothing is flying around.

You going to make a really great critic some day you know that

[GregX]

You going to make a really great critic some day you know that

I totally agree. Personally, I'd love to see him in the actual field. He'd make a great producer, some day.

[Temple Fugate]

Why does one have to be better than the others? Why can't they be equally good for different reasons?

[GregX]

Why does one have to be better than the others? Why can't they be equally good for different reasons?

Read what I wrote. I said "favorite" not "best" or "better"

[Temple Fugate]

Read what I wrote. I said "favorite" not "best" or "better"

*slaps forehead*

I walked right into that.

Anyway, I still can't choose among them. Definitely isn't Lucas, though.

Each one of them has undeniably influenced modern film and I like their styles for different reasons.

[HG Revolution]

I really haven't as much Scorcese as I should, so with my current knowledge I'm voting for Spielberg.

[FightingDreamer]

I'm almost ashamed to admit this, but I haven't seen anything by Scorsese, or The Godfather films, or Apocalypse Now... yeah, I'm really behind. So, Spielberg it is. Granted, I haven't seen all his films (still need to check out Jaws-*is immediately beaten by Hanshotfirst1138 and Michael24*, Close Encounters, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and Munich), but he's a much more diverse and daring director than some give him credit for. E.T., for example, remains deeply, emotionally powerful because Spielberg milks the drama for all its worth. There's something daring about being so openly emotional and sentimental.

Some of his more recent films, such as A.I. or Minority Report, are fairly experimental for the director; they're frankly more Kubrickian in tone, which makes sense in the case of A.I. since Kubrick worked on the film for years before passing it on to Spielberg.In Report, you can see more of Spielberg than Kubrick, I think; his playful side (such as a scene where we find out, reassuringly, that Cops will still be on the air in 2050) is more apparent, as is his marvelous talent for action, suspense, and utilizing special effects. It's also not quite as dour as A.I.; Report's future is a little creepy, perhaps, but it's telling that the Precrime Unit is still subject to the law and citizen's rights. It's definitely not Blade Runner. A.I. is a little more dystopian in its depiction of the future, and the best scenes in the movie take place in the terrifying Runner-esque Rogue City. There is the problem of the ending in A.I. (Report is a classic detective tale, and ends as such, even though it's perhaps a little too neat and tidy). Personally, I think Spielberg should have ended A.I. with the shot of the camera pulling back from the frozen David as he waits for the "Blue Fairy". It probably would have been more depressing, but anything's better than the out-of-nowhere climax that we ultimately get.

His recent comedies such as Catch Me If You Can and The Terminal are also, in a way, experimental; while he's always had an eye for humor, subtle or unsubtle, Catch and Terminal are primarily quiet, sweet and, astonishingly, humane comedies. While Frank Abagnale Jr. (wonderfully portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio) is probably not a good role model in Catch, there's a certain gleeful thrill in watching him get away with his cons, and Spielberg graciously gives us some depth in Frank's relationships with his father (Christopher Walken, who reminds us that he can actually act and not just delightfully chew scenery in this film) and federal agent Carl Hanratty (Tom Hanks, in an atypically sour role). One of my favorite scenes in the movie is when Frank and Carl chat on the phone on Christmas. It underlines how lonely Frank is, and how he desperately needs guidance in his life.

The Terminal is a delightful study in human nature; while Tom Hanks lays his uncategorized accent on a little thick at points, he disappears into the role of Viktor. Viktor is a character we don't see often in the movies these days: Utterly guileless. He is exactly who he appears to be, a good, kind man who enjoys helping others. Stanley Tucci's airport official is baffled by him, and Tucci manages to make his character sympathetic even as the screenplay occasionally nudges him into near-villainy. The only element that doesn't really work is Catherine Zeta-Jones' flight attendant; while Jones and Hanks have a nice chemistry, her character is ultimately less interesting than the colorful supporting staff, which includes the delightful Kumar Pallana (his burgeoning friendship with Viktor is one of the best elements in the film), the indispensable Chi McBride, and Diego Luna as the lovesick worker who enlists Viktor to help him win Officer Dolores (the vivacious Zoe Saldana).

Anyway, Spielberg is definitely a favorite, which makes his misfires (Hook is the main one, although I haven't seen 1941) all the more disappointing.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Sheesh. All of them are flawed in many ways, but I guess I like Scorsese the best.

Spielberg's a great director, probably the most proficient out of these 4, but he's too soft and sentimental for my tastes at times. All of his "heavy" movies, (Like Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan) I don't have much care for. I like his lighthearted movies the best.

[MajorTom]

Oi, very difficult. I love all four of them (yes, even Lucas).
Coppola has made four of the greatest movies I've ever seen (first two Godfathers, the Conversation, Apocalypse Now), although some of his later output is hit or miss. Rumble Fish is extremely underrated, and I always thought it should be mentioned among his best films.
Scorsese has pretty much never made a bad movie. He's mastered every genre (except sci-fi, but I'm sure he'd do a great job with one) King of Comedy and After Hours are both hysterically funny and are just as great as some of his more remembered classics.
Spielberg is another favorite of mine. Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, E.T., Schindler's List, A.I., Minority Report, Munich, etc. Just a huge abundance of great movies.
Lucas is the hardest to defend I suppose, but his first three films (THX 1138, American Graffiti, Star Wars) are all fantastic, and completely different. THX is almost never talked about, but there is a lot of creative filmmaking at work in that movie. American Graffiti is just pure fun, and one of my favorite comedies. Star Wars will always be great, no matter your opinion of the prequels. As for his more recent work, it's still pretty solid escapist entertainment, in my book. I'd love to see him direct something non-Star Wars related, though.
Overall, I'd say it's a tossup between Scorsese and Speilberg. Both have mastered multiple genres and have a large amount of excellent movies.
The '70s also had many other phenomenal filmmakers. Robert Altman, Woody Allen, Sam Peckinpah (although he released his best film in the sixties), Hal Ashby, and a bunch more. Just an amazing era for film.

[Classic Speedy]

Honestly, aside from "Duel", I don't like the majority of Spielberg's '70s output. I didn't think he became a great director until the '80s, starting with Raiders.

"Close Encounters" was OK and I liked how, for once, aliens weren't portrayed as vicious monsters out to kill humans, but it's a bit slow-moving.

"Jaws" didn't frighten me at all, and honestly many of the people in the movie were beyond stupid, so I ended up rooting for the shark.

Though I must confess, haven't yet seen "The Sugarland Express".

[Hanshotfirst113]

You going to make a really great critic some day you know that

I appreciate that, I really do .

I totally agree. Personally, I'd love to see him in the actual field. He'd make a great producer, some day.

God willing ! And thanks. That means a lot.

I'm almost ashamed to admit this, but I haven't seen anything by Scorsese, or The Godfather films, or Apocalypse Now... yeah, I'm really behind.

Scorsese's ourve is really vast (I'd recommend starting with GoodFellas, as I did, but I've still only sampled a small bit of his output), and Coppola's best films are the kind of thing that you really have to sit down and take a lot of time with, both in terms of the length and content. The first two Godfather films are among the few that can serve as both great storytelling and rich art, but Apocalypse Now is a very uncompromisingly difficult film. You could ask 6 people and get 7 viable interpretations. It's very strange, and just as many people hate as love it, but it's a movie that you owe yourself to see at least once to make up your own mind.

So, Spielberg it is. Granted, I haven't seen all his films (still need to check out Jaws-*is immediately beaten by Hanshotfirst1138 and Michael24*, Close Encounters, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and Munich), but he's a much more diverse and daring director than some give him credit for. E.T., for example, remains deeply, emotionally powerful because Spielberg milks the drama for all its worth. There's something daring about being so openly emotional and sentimental.

First of all, see Jaws. It's a stone-cold classic. Second, I agree. I mean, as an excellent review that I read over at the IMDb pointed out, after kicking off the CGI revolution with Jurassic Park, Spielberg totally changed gears. While other people jumped on the bandwagon and cranked out all kinds of similar material, Spielberg was always branching out. He made stuff like Schindler's List, A.I., Amistad, Catch Me If You Can, Minority Report, War of the Worlds, etc. We can argue about how good or bad those films are until we're blue in the face, but Spielberg never settled on one style and just milked it. He's misfired sometimes, and badly, but he's really tried to do different things. Spielberg doesn't want to be pidgeonholed.

In terms of his darkness, I think that Spielberg has something of a dark streak. He's a gooey sentimentalist oftentimes, to be sure, but when he decides to go for the throat, he can be as viscous as any horror director. Duel and much of Jaws are probably the best examples that come to mind. Duel, in particular, is pretty much the barest idea of a plot, but Spielberg sustains what should have been a story that lasts all of five minutes to nearly an hour and half of brilliant suspense. The film is crackling high-voltage. I also think that it's the synergy of these two things that gives Spielberg his kick sometimes. The violence in Raiders is comic-book like and cartoonish, but you feel it. Even the cutaway when Indy gets hit with the mirror...ow! Is I haven't seen Hook or 1941, but on form, Spielberg plays the audience like a violin better than anyone this side of Hitchcock. Is Indiana Jones going to die? Well, of course not. If he dies, then the movie ends. But I think that Speilberg, whenever he puts him in a scrape, really makes me feel like it could be the end of him.

Overall, I'd say it's a tossup between Scorsese and Speilberg. Both have mastered multiple genres and have a large amount of excellent movies.
The '70s also had many other phenomenal filmmakers. Robert Altman, Woody Allen, Sam Peckinpah (although he released his best film in the sixties), Hal Ashby, and a bunch more. Just an amazing era for film.

Quite so, quite so indeed. Say, I haven't watched it yet (my Netflix queue is full ), but has anyone seen a documentary called A Decade Under the Influence about 70s film? Evidently, it's fascinating.