Men of Steel - Sexism and the New Superman

From Zack Snyder - the director of the slightly rapey 'Sucker Punch' and nakedly homophobic, machismo-fest that is '300' - Superman reboot 'Man of Steel' is rightly getting a lot of flack from critics for being a terrible movie. I'll post my thoughts on it later in the week, when I get a chance, but today (on Father's Day, no less!) I wanted to write about one particular element that hasn't gotten much attention - and that's the film's abysmal treatment of female characters.

Forget for a moment that "Pulitzer prize winning" reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams) - the film's only female with any agency whatsoever - only figures out one key plot point/survives an action scene because a hologram of a man literally tells her what to do, step-by-step. Or the fact that a female military officer only exists to say that Superman (Henry Cavill) is hot and to ask dumb questions in the many scenes of Richard Schiff-powered pseudo-science ("what is terraforming?"). Or the fact that the Daily Planet reporter trapped under rubble during one climactic action scene, is also (with crushing inevitability) a helpless lady. Or the cliche scene that sees Clark Kent come to the defense of a helpless waitress, suffering from unwanted male attention. Or the fact that the henchman of the villain we are most encouraged to want to see die is a woman, becoming the default enemy of "cool military guy #3". Forget all of that for a moment, because I want to talk about the parents.

What really bothered me was the film's relegation of Superman's mothers - alien and Earthling alike - to barely relevant supporting roles, whilst emphasising both fathers. A conscious decision highlighted by the fact that both men are played by high-profile leading men (Russell Crowe as Kryptonian Jor-El and Kevin Coster as Jonathan Kent), whilst the women are scarcely of the same high profile. Incidentally that's not to say they aren't of equal talent: the Academy Award nominated Diane Lane (who plays Martha Kent) and Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer (Lara Lor-Van - from whom Superman takes no part of his Kryptonian name) are both talented actors - but they aren't stars. They aren't required to be recognised or loved by the audience as soon as they appear, unlike Crowe and Costner who are expected to exude all the necessary paternal gravitas during the film's many father-son heart-to-hearts.

Comic book writer Mark Waid, author of the fantastic Superman origin story Birthright, penned his own fairly negative review of the film on his blog, after being left "heartbroken" by a midnight screening. But aside from his criticisms, he acknowledged with humility how Snyder's Christopher Nolan produced, David S Goyer scripted movie takes elements from his own telling of the origin story - from visual cues (like the transition from baby Kal-El's spaceship entering Earth's atmosphere to adult Clark Kent - not yet Superman - saving lives) to plot points (Lois Lane scouring the globe writing stories about Superman her editors don't want to publish) and whole chunks of dialogue. And this is true: the film does lift entire elements from Birthright to an almost distracting degree.

So it becomes very telling that when the film takes whole chunks of important dialogue and bonding moments between Clark and his mothers and gender swaps them in favour of male characters. For instance (and these are just a few examples gleaned from quickly flicking through the book again this morning)...

The history of the golden age of planet Krypton is depicted in the film - via a strange, metallic animated background - as quite a traditionally militaristic and very masculine affair. A page from birthright, below (shoddily photographed by me), shows the same historical events: but note ALL the warriors are female. It's a double-page spread and, as you might be able to make out, there's yet another female soldier in the bottom left-hand corner, on the fold. This isn't explicitly mentioned in the text - it's never commented on. It just seems to operate on the logic that Krypton is an alien planet, so who is to say they have adopted the same gender norms? Kudos to Waid and artist Leinil Yu.

Remember in the movie how Jonathan Kent tells Clark that he's the answer to the question of whether or not we're alone in the universe? In Birthright, guess who has that line:

That's right! It's mum. The same mum who, in the film, says and does practically nothing - aside from getting intimated by the bad guy (Michael Shannon's General Zod) and requiring rescue. After which she's completely forgotten about. In fact, Clark leaves her with a bunch of Zod's henchmen and doesn't ever go back to check on her. It's a miracle she survives, because movie Superman's priority in that scene seems to be "punch Zod" rather than "rescue mum".

In any case, Costner's Jonathan Kent gets all of Matha's key dialogue and character moments from Birthright - whilst retaining all his own - and the film is similarly skewed towards the male characters when it comes to the Krypton parents.

In the film, you may recall, it's Crowe's Jor-El who has the courage, scientific genius, emotional detachment and sense of perspective to send his baby son into space toward Earth, and off his doomed planet. Lara presses some buttons to initiate the launch, whilst Crowe has a pointless fist-fight with Zod (action! Please don't be bored kids!), but otherwise she's pretty passive and primarily ruled by emotion. And, when it comes to making the big decision, it's her who is portrayed as reluctant to send the baby into space - whilst Crowe is left to man-up and gets things done.

Here's how the exact same beat plays out in Waid's comic book (below):

That's right: the opposite way. Lara is the strong one, not ruled by emotion, with the courage and hope to send her son into the unknown, rather than leave him to certain doom with them on Krypton. It's Jor-El who wavers in a way that a male movie star apparently can't. Wouldn't that have been interesting in the film? But Russell Crowe had to be shown as the strong one who 1) got things done and 2) actually advanced the story. In the comic it's Lara who actually initiates the entire plot. In essence, she creates Superman as we know him, sending him to our world. And then, on Earth, it's Martha who helps create the man he becomes: the caring, selfless hero and saviour of mankind (incidentally the film makes it very clear - through the line "I'm as American as it gets" - that Superman belongs to the US and not to us). She encourages him and has unshakable faith in him, even whilst Jonathan gives air to doubt.

In fact, part of Martha's role in the comic book is in creating her son's costume and helping to fabricate his nebbish Clark Kent cover identity - both things rendered obsolete in this latest film adaptation, that presumably thought an outfit designed by the hero's mum wouldn't play as especially cool. Instead, in the film, the iconic outfit (or at least a muted and dour incarnation) is bestowed upon him by a holographic Jor-El. That's right: a long-dead father is more useful and relevant in this film than his living mother.

I bring the comic up for direct comparison because it seems clear it was a basis for much of what happens in 'Man of Steel' - and the gender swapping here seems consciously done in favour of the male characters. You can decide whether that's a symbol of patriarchy or the need to give Crowe/Costner more screentime, but either way, I hope you agree: it's pretty rubbish.

Oh and SPOILER WARNING!!!!!!!!!: the film's version of Martha Kent sends her husband INTO THE TORNADO THAT KILLS HIM in order to rescue the family dog. And she's not even shown to feel bad about that. She's a truly wretched character.

Review to follow.

'The Dark Knight Rises' and 'Ted': review round-up

Still waiting on buying a new computer so I never got around to posting that in-depth 'The Dark Knight Rises' critique I wanted to. And seeing as that film has now been out for a few weeks it feels like old news, so I may as well just write a little something about it ahead of an (even more brief) appraisal of Seth MacFarlane's comedy 'Ted'. Be warned, this is a sour grapes, spoilsport edition blog post, in which I actively dislike two films most people have at least enjoyed, if not broadly praised. I wanted to enjoy both of these, for what it's worth.

'The Dark Knight Rises'
Part of the problem facing this one is that I loved 'The Dark Knight' all out of proportion and, in enjoying it as much as I did four summers ago, I also became a fairly big supporter of director Christopher Nolan. However, since then two things have happened: firstly, 'Inception' came along and wore out any goodwill I had accumulated towards the filmmaker - being bloated, pompous, cold and extremely reliant on exposition (all flaws 'TDKR' shares to greater and lesser extents). Secondly, and more recently, 'The Avengers' came out and showed us all that big superhero movies could be unabashed fun - true to their source material without overly pandering to hardcore fans, yet broadly celebratory of their pulpy source material all the same. By contrast Nolan's films still feel embarrassed to have Batman in them.

Now, before people shout "bias", I didn't go in resolved to dislike 'TDKR' because of these factors, but I probably wasn't as pumped for it as I would have been a couple of short years ago. But what really stopped me from getting on with 'TDKR' was the film itself: overlong, self-important, and even sloppily made - with Hans Zimmer's score overpowering much of the dialogue and with a basic lack of storytelling coherency throughout. There are too many new characters. The film chops between too many disparate plot threads and far too frequently. There is zero sense of either time (months pass and we know this only because of dialogue) or space (people go from desserts to cities without the sense of physical distance).

The film is full of strange "joke" moments and throwaway lines that feel like they come from a different movie and are presented in such a cold and robotic way that they feel forced. And though Anne Hathaway nails it as Catwoman, and Michael Caine does some wonderful stuff with some otherwise over-written and melodramatic dialogue, it's a mystery how such a poor performance was drawn from the usually excellent Marion Cotillard. Don't even get me started on Tom Hardy, over-acting with his eyes and delivering his lines in a variable and barely understandable accent. I've been told he's easier to understand if you see the film in IMAX, with 7.1 surround sound - but that's not how most people will see it and, to me, that sounds like a poor excuse for bad mixing/sound design/acting.

The action scenes are technically impressive but lack any feeling of awe. The fistfights lack anything like imaginative choreography, tending to resemble to big men exchanging punches. Joseph Gordon Levitt is really compelling as a rookie detective, but gets relatively little to do (you could say the same for Catwoman, forgotten for most of the film's second half). Batman himself spends far too much time walking in daylight and his secret identity is shared far too liberally. Add to all this the fact that the film's politics are dispiritingly conservative, broadly supportive of the super-rich and cynical about those who would seek to redress the balance (the occupy movement is the obvious target, but not the only one in a film that's broadly suspicious of any and all grass roots social change). There are two tacked on, completely false feeling, romantic sub-plots - one of which is (arguably) relevant to the story but the other one is completely superfluous.

It's just no fun at all. In fact it's incredibly boring and goes on forever. I have to admit, I enjoyed it slightly more on a second viewing, with radically reduced expectations, getting swept up in the internal mythology of a trilogy that contains the ultimate re-boot ('Batman Begins') and one of the best (if not THE BEST) superhero movies ever made ('The Dark Knight'). But it still isn't a good movie. I feel like such a grouchy old man right now, but there it is.

'Ted'
If you thought I sounded like a fun-spoiling misanthrope above, then you're not going to enjoy this. Kicking a comedy - a film which only intends to spread laughter - often feels like a thankless task. And if 'Ted' has given audiences some laughs and distracted them from the outside world for an hour and a half, then all power to it. But for me - not a fan of 'Family Guy' by any yardstick - it was just a one-joke crass-fest and an extremely pointless one at that. That one joke being: "it's funny because a children's toy is swearing and fucking hookers!" A child gets punched in the face. People poo on stuff. Every race, creed and mental illness is casually mined for shock humour - with zero satirical intent or apparent meaning. If that sounds like your idea of a good time, and if I sound like a massive snob by saying this, then clearly you'll have more fun with it than I did.

I laughed twice - though I can't remember at what - and, for what it's worth, I like the initial premise: a classic 80s kids movie wish fulfilment fantasy taken to its horrendous conclusion. Yet otherwise it left me cold. The cast is solid, MacFarlane's direction is assured and the CGI bear works well with his surroundings - but that's about the best I can say for it.

Superhero Trailer Special: 'The Dark Knight Rises' and 'The Amazing Spider-Man'

I haven't been updating here a lot recently, for several reasons. I've become slightly addicted to Marvel comics in the wake of 'The Avengers', for a start. Then there's the fact that Football Manager Handheld is now out on Android, which means I spend most of my time glued to my recently acquired tablet pretending to manage Portsmouth (for some reason). I've also been helping to write the programme for a European festival happening within the next two months, so that's taking all the time that isn't spent doing the other two things.

I saw George Lucas' 'Red Tails' yesterday but that's under embargo for the best part of a month. So, in lieu of anything else to talk about, I'll do what I always do when there's nothing left to say: I'll post trailers!

Below are the latest 'The Dark Knight Rises' and 'The Amazing Spider-Man' trailers followed by a bit of shallow chitchat filler. Yes, I'm obsessed with comic book superheroes at the moment, but then so is "the industry" at large. 'The Avengers' looks set to break that billion dollar mark during its run - it opens in the US today having already achieved a significant chunk of that milestone after a week playing internationally - so this summer look set to be dominated by the costumed hero more than any in memory.

Anyway, here's the third trailer for Christopher Nolan's third Batman movie: 'The Dark Knight Rises':



These Nolan Batman trailers - like anything else - lose impact viewed on a computer screen, as I found when I saw the previous trailer projected in IMAX in front of 'The Avengers'. There is an understated quiet to the way they are marketing this movie to date that benefits from the big screen treatment, pulling you into this world the way only a darkened room and a massive screen can. It's with this in mind that I say I'm not exactly over-enthused by this latest peek at the culmination of Nolan's trilogy, viewed at home and in daylight. But I'm not on the whole discouraged.

'The Dark Knight' is one of the best films of the last ten years and - prior to Marvel's latest - the last film to really excite me with its action scenes, so I'm sure 'Rises' will be (at the very least) good. But Bane as the main villain? That's not exactly inspiring, despite the presence of Tom Hardy, though Anne Hathaway is always good value which should make Catwoman interesting.

As for the trailer itself, it's hard to escape the feeling that they're now throwing all the major set pieces at us: the football field sinking into the ground, the mid-air hijack of (presumably) Wayne's plane, and the destruction of a bridge - though each of these moments looks excellent, let's hope there are some surprises left for the final film. Intriguingly, there is still nothing here overtly showing off Liam Neeson reprising his character from 'Batman Begins', so perhaps there's a whole side to this movie we still know nothing about. I hope so.

Also, the flying vehicle at the end of the trailer (as previously glimpsed in fleeting shots of the previous promo) looks decidedly un-Nolan. These Batman films have been all about stripping the series of fantasy elements (in the comics Batman has some truly weird villains) and going "real" and "gritty" with it. Yet this crazy flying car thing is clearly not of our reality. Taken along with rumours of the Lazarus Pit being used as a plot device, along with the possible resurrection of Neeson's Ra's al Ghul, could this mean Nolan's Batman is heading in a slightly less determinedly realistic direction?

Next up, Marc Webb's 'The Amazing Spider-Man' AKA 'The Pointless Reboot Nobody Asked For':



I'll lay my cards on the table from the off: I didn't like Marc Webb's last film, '(500) Days of Summer', at all. Smug, charmless, contrived, high on its own farts. Rubbish. I also don't see why 'Spider-Man', as established so well on the screen by Sam Raimi, needs a "re-boot" when it's so recent. 'Spider-Man 3' wasn't so bad that we all need to start again and find out who Peter Parker is, and see him get bitten by the spider, and see Uncle Ben get killed all over. That said, I do like Andrew Garfield and think he could do great things with the iconic role.

In this trailer we get a glimpse of Garfield as Spidey from the comic books, as the jokey, wise-ass. Him taunting the car thief about his small knife is funny and is the first real indication that this movie could work. However... everything else we've been shown so far is horrible.

Why is this movie all about Peter Parker trying to learn the truth about his parents? Since when was that a major preoccupation of Spider-Man? And his new suit looks so ugly: garish and over-designed. And, worst of all, the film's villain - the Lizard (Rhys Ifans) - looks appalling both in terms of design (where he looks more like a dinosaur than any previous incarnation of the comic book character) and in terms of the shoddy CGI. It's a far cry from the motion captured excellence of the Hulk in 'The Avengers'. And therein lies the film's biggest problem.

Nolan's Batman trilogy is its own thing, and whilst journalists will inevitably measure its success against that of Marvel's team-up monster hit, tonally and in terms of how it handles the subject matter it's likely to appeal to a different audience (albeit with a sizable overlap). Spider-Man, on the other hand, is a colourful Marvel hero and this film will (by the looks of things) suffer from comparison to either film - especially as it aims to take on an amount of Nolan-esque "gritty". It looks as though 'The Amazing Spider-Man' won't equal the escapist thrills and laughs of 'The Avengers' whilst also failing to convince those who hunger for increased realism and "darkness". In short, it'll please nobody. Then again these sub-zero expectations could see it become a very pleasant surprise.

I'll naturally still go and see it, but that's because I'm increasingly a Marvel comics fanboy. But boy do I wish Marvel owned the cinematic rights to this and several other flagship properties (Fantastic Four, X-Men, Daredevil), as they have really lead the way in terms of making book-accurate super hero movies that are neither excessively camp nor po-faced.

My top 10 films of the 2000s...

It struck me the other day that I haven't picked my list of the top 10 films of the last decade (2000-2009). Therefore, here is a list of my favourite films of the last ten years. Note that these are the ones I enjoy the most rather than the "most significant". These films have affected me the most emotionally and given me the most pleasure over repeat viewings. There is certainly a Hollywood dominance over this list with all but two of the films being from the US. There are two Charlie Kaufman screenplays in there and two films at least co-written by Noah Baumbach.

However, the main thing I've noticed from this list is that (with the possible exception of one or two films) all these movies have protagonists many have described as unlikeable. I suppose I like flawed characters, often socially awkward, damaged people. There are plenty of them in this list from Leonardo DiCaprio as Howard Hughes to Adam Sandler as Barry Egan.

Anyway, here they are:

10) The Aviator
Martin Scorsese/USA/2004
Controversially, this is my favourite Scorsese film. DiCaprio is great as Hughes in this humanistic, non-judgemental portrait of a flawed genius now best known as a reclusive freak. There is more subtlety here than I usually associate with Scorsese (or Michael Mann who produced the film and started the project) with a detailed and slow development of Hughes' ticks and eccentricities. Also, the film is replete with immaculate period detail.


9) A Serious Man
Joel and Ethan Coen/USA/2009
A slow burner this one. I was unsure after my first viewing of this Coen Brothers' film. However, after seeing it a second time it went straight to the top of last years "best of" poll. Stage actor Michael Stuhlbarg is great in the central role as Larry Gopnik in this rich and funny film which is probably the duo's most cerebral since 'Barton Fink'.


8) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Michel Gondry/USA/2004
A brilliant screenplay which has a lot to say (as you'd expect from Charlie Kaufman) about memory, regret and human relationships. As with all Kaufman films, there is much to be sad about and plenty of bleak, somewhat depressing ideas, but the conclusion is hopeful and beautiful. The second Kaufman screenplay directed by Michel Gondry, this film is certainly an improvement on the 2001 film 'Human Nature' (which is very good, but not great).


7) Spirited Away
Hayao Miyazaki/Japan/2001
The only animation on this list, this Japanese film from Hayao Miyazaki proved that Studio Ghibli are at least as good as Pixar in terms of being the best animators in the world today. Joe Hisaishi's score is genius and compliments a really heart-warming human story in an imaginative fantasy context.


6) The Dark Knight
Christopher Nolan/USA/2008
Easily the most exciting blockbuster of the last decade, Christopher Nolan's Batman sequel is an intelligent summer movie with a top ensemble cast and jaw-dropping stunts. If Nolan makes another Batman it will easily be the film I am most excited about seeing. I'm even excited about the Superman film he is producing!


5) The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Wes Anderson/USA/2004
All of Wes Anderson's 00's output could be on this list (but I thought that's be boring) so I struggled and chose this one because I probably find myself quoting it the most. Plus, it's really emotional at times and Murray is great as Zissou.


4) Happy-Go-Lucky
Mike Leigh/UK/2008
Mike Leigh really did something special with this one (which I wrote about recently on this blog). A terrific character study from Sally Hawkins as Poppy in a film which is as much an allegory for differing philosophies on education as anything else.


3) The Squid and the Whale
Noah Baumbach/USA/2005
I recently reviewed Noah Baumbach's latest film 'Greenberg', but before I loved that film I loved 'The Squid and the Whale'. Baumbach co-wrote 'The Life Aquatic' with Wes Anderson and Anderson returned the favour by producing this film which is note perfect in its depiction of the relationship between Jeff Daniels and Jesse Eisenberg as a pretentious father and his admiring son.


2) Adaptation
Spike Jonze/USA/2002
Before the recent films 'Kick-Ass' and Herzog's 'Bad Lieutenant' Nicolas Cage's last film to be proud of was this Spike Jonze/Charlie Kaufman (again) film in which he plays the author and his fictitious twin brother "Donald". Brian Cox is just as great in an almost film-stealing role as a screenplay writer giving a seminar on the craft. His character perfectly sums up artistic pretension (something done less well in the Kaufman directed 'Synechdoche, New York' in 2008). Also, Donald's monlogue near the end moves me to tears every time.


1) Punch-Drunk Love
Paul Thomas Anderson/USA/2002
I won't write anymore about this film as I am always going on about it. Here is my detailed retrospective look from a few weeks back.


Honourable mentions got to the following films which almost made the list. In no particular order here are 15 other great films from the last decade:
Grizzly Man (2005)
Lilo & Stitch (2002)
Up (2009)
There Will be Blood (2007)
No Country for Old Men (2007)
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
Y tu mamá también (2001)
Humpday (2009)
Amelie (2001)
City of God (2002)
Team America: World Police (2004)
Runnin' Down a Dream (2007)
The Motorcycle Diaries (2004)
This is England (2006)
In Bruges (2008)

10 directors who excite me now...

Don’t know why I fancied writing about this today, but here are my top 10 active filmmakers. I don’t mean the “top 10 greatest living directors”, but rather, this is a list of directors whose work I am still excited by and always eagerly anticipate. Of course, the best living directors could include people whose powers have long since diminished: Woody Allen, Steven Spielberg and Jean-Luc Goddard could all be considered “great” directors, but when was their last “great” film? Yes, these guys can still make good films: Woody Allen releases one good film a year, generally. But however good ‘You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger’ is, chances are it won’t hold a candle to ‘Manhattan’ or ‘Annie Hall’, in the same way that ‘The Terminal’ and ‘Munich’ aren’t destined to be remembered as being up there with ‘Jaws’ and ‘ET’.

Of course, this doesn’t mean to say that the next Spielberg film won’t be a classic, but it’s all about expectations, isn’t it? And as far as Spielberg is concerned: unless it’s a fourth Jurassic Park movie, I’m not interested.

I also haven’t included Armando Iannucci (‘In the Loop’), Chris Morris (‘Four Lions’) or Martin McDonagh (‘In Bruges’), because although their films are probably some of the most exciting I have seen in the last few years (and I eagerly await their next efforts) I want to focus on directors whose films have consistently dazzled me. Anyway, with that proviso, on with the list (in no particular order)…

Wes Anderson
My favourite film: 'Bottle Rocket' (1996)

Wes Anderson is possibly my favourite current director. I have never been left disappointed by one of his films (though I know many didn't like 'Life Aquatic' or 'Darjeeling Limited' overly). I love how good-natured his movies are and how the portagonists are vulnerable and childish people, fond of being in teams and of being liked. Anderson's films aren't cynical and they exist as a celebration of life and of colour. I feel moved and uplifted by scenes in all his films to date and whatever his next project after the splendid stop-frame animation 'The Fantastic Mr. Fox', I am very excited.

The Coen Brothers
My favourite film: 'The Big Lebowski' (1998)

A slightly more complicated relationship exists between me and the Coen's, but only slightly. This is only reasonable though: they have made many more films than Wes Anderson after all. Basically, they had a bad patch with 'Intolerable Cruelty' (2003) and 'The Ladykillers' (2004), the latter being a god-awful remake of a genuine classic Ealing comedy, and wisely took a few years off to return in a blaze of glory with the Oscar-winning 'No Country for Old Men' in 2007. Now they are following up my favourite movie of last year ('A Serious Man') with another remake (although they insist it's more of an adaptation of the book than a remake) as they prepare to release 'True Grit' this December. Jeff Bridges (the Dude himself) is taking on John Wayne's own Oscar-winning role as Rooster Cogburn and I am pretty excited. After all, 'No Country' was, for all intents and purposes, a modern Western and it was incredible. I have faith.

Anything written by Charlie Kaufman
My favourite film: 'Adaptation' (2002)

The only writer on this list (although he did direct 'Synechdoche, New York' himself), Kaufman, in his work with Spike Jonze ('Being John Malkovich' and 'Adaptation') and Michel Gondry ('Human Nature' and 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind') has proven himself a genius time and time again. All his films have endless replay value for me, and each time I learn a little more about them. They are probably the most endlessly rewarding films ever made.

Christopher Nolan
My favourite film: 'The Dark Knight' (2008)

Here's a man who has never steered me wrong (so far)! It is a close three-way tie for his best film ('Memento' and 'The Prestige' are just as good as 'The Dark Knight') but his second Batman film excited me the most of all of them. My favourite superhero movie and the first/last time I really got excited at stunts and set-pieces in the last ten years of cinema. I love it! 'Inception' (due out very soon) looks... interesting (the trailer gives almost nothing away), but I have no reason to doubt that Nolan will deliver again.

Hayao Miyazaki
My favourite film: 'My Neighbour Totoro' (1988)

The best living animator. That's all I have to say. 'Ponyo' was great and whatever he makes next will be great. Sorry if that doesn't sound objective, but his films move me and excite me. Like Wes Anderson, there is an innocence and naivety about his work which is charming but never twee. Just too good. Soon he will retire, but I hope we get a few more classics yet.

Werner Herzog
My favourite film: 'My Best Fiend' (1999)

What can I say about the insane genius that is Herzog? Whilst I did enjoy the likes of 'Rescue Dawn' and 'Bad Lieutenant', I proberly prefer his documentaries these days. I suppose that's mainly because he narrates them and because he never tackles any subject matter in a traditional way. When he films penguins it is to find their inherent madness and obsurdity. One of my favourites is a short from 1977 called 'La Soufrière', in which he travels to a volcano that is about to errupt and films it up close, with no regard for his own safety. I am looking forward to whatever he does next, as well as a UK release of 'My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done?'.

Paul Thomas Anderson
My favourite film: 'Punch-Drunk Love' (2002)

This guy is just amazing. 'Punch-Drunk Love' is possibly my favourite film of all time and 'There Will Be Blood' (2007) is right up there too. Then we have 'Magnolia' (1999), 'Boogie Nights' (1997) and 'Hard Eight' (1996). Basically he is like no one else, visually and in terms of the way he tells a story. 'Punch-Drunk Love' and 'There Will Be Blood' unite the music and the image like nothing else I've seen. His next film is getting me very excited indeed, especially as 'The Master' stars Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

Takeshi Kitano
My favourite film: 'Hana-bi' (1997)

Probably best known here as the presenter of 'Takeshi's Castle', an odd Japanese gameshow, or as the sinister, evil bloke at the start of 'Battle Royale', but Takeshi 'Beat' Kitano is an institution in his native land. A stand-up comic, turned actor, turned award winning, internationally recognised director. He can do anything, from straight police thrillers like 'Violent Cop' and 'Sonatine', to slapstick comedy in 'Getting Any?' (maybe the maddest film ever), to the more poignant, festival friendly 'Hana-bi' (which won the Golden Lion in Venice in 2007), establishing him as the most internationally relevant Japanese filmmaker since Kurosawa. He also tackled the long-running 'Zatoichi' franchise in 2003, making a damn fine samurai film too. I am yet to see his 'Takeshis' trilogy (released 2005, 2007 and 2008 to bad reviews) which is more autobiograhical, but I am excited to see his latest film 'Outrage', which played at Cannes.

Brad Bird
My favourite film: 'The Iron Giant' (1999)

The second animator on my list (although his next film is 'Mission Impossible 4' in live-action), Brad Bird caught my attention with 'The Iron Giant', an overlooked Warner Brothers animation. That film has such loving attention to detail it is perhaps the best non-Disney, American feature animation ever. He then went on to work for the great PIXAR and made 'The Incredibles' (my second favourite superhero film) and 'Ratatouille' (which also ain't bad). I am not super enthused to see 'MI4', but I would like to see whether he takes a unique visual style into live-action, like animators Burton and Gilliam have in the past. Could be interesting.

George Lucas
My favourite film: 'Star Wars' (1977)

A real wild card pick here! Since 1971's 'THX 1138', George Lucas (a peer of Spielberg, Milius, Coppola, Scorcese and De Palma) has made just five films as a director. 'American Graffiti' (1973) is a classic that inspired many immitators (not to mention the TV show 'Happy Days') and launched the career of Ron Howard (Lucas also gave Howard his first directorial job with 'Willow'). Then he made 'Star Wars' in 1977 and everything changed, for Hollywood movies and for Lucas. He didn't direct the sequels, or his 'Indiana Jones' screenplays, only returning to the director's chair in 1999 with the first of three critically despised Star Wars prequel movies (which I enjoyed). The last of these came out in 2005. But will he ever direct again? Will he ever make a non-Star Wars related movie? You see, that's why Lucas excites me as a director. I am intigued about what he would make and how he would make it if he ever decided to stop riding the Star Wars gravy train. His first three movies were classics, what happened?