albstein's profile

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

Mon, Apr 15, 2019 4:53 PM

Live Poll: And the Nobel Prize Goes to... (IMDb Poll Board)

The Nobel Prize is an award bestowed to people who distinguished themselves in Literature, Chemistry, Physics, Physiology or Medicine, and Peace. Based on nominations by the IMDb Poll Board, which of these living directors would you give a Nobel Prize for Film?

List: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls042274155/
Poll: https://www.imdb.com/poll/W96o1Vf1Ols/

Champion

 • 

10.6K Messages

 • 

288.8K Points

3年前

Jean-Luc Godard. Still experimenting.

5.8K Messages

 • 

117.8K Points

3年前

My dark horse candidate,Brian De Palma.
I really like his style and technique that give his films a unique look and feel.
Brian De Palma at an event for Passion 2012

2000 Mission to Mars
1998 Snake Eyes
1996 Mission: Impossible
1993 Carlito's Way
1989 Casualties of War (as Brian DePalma)
1987 The Untouchables
1981 Blow Out
1976 Carrie

4.8K Messages

 • 

134.2K Points

3年前

Miyazaki

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

3年前

Thanks guys. A technical question: do links to user profiles require a different format, like those to people?

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

Thank you!

Champion

 • 

6.2K Messages

 • 

153.8K Points

3年前

Cool idea, alb.
I would like to nominate Yimou Zhang.

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

Thanks, added!

4.4K Messages

 • 

124K Points

3年前

Will think about my nomination.
P.S. Now I'm making GIFS and I can't get enough!  (Yes, I made this one)
Fight GIF

4.4K Messages

 • 

124K Points

I nominate Andrew Adamson; his work on Narnia alone is beyond compare.  ;)

4.4K Messages

 • 

124K Points

Yes, I know - to me, Narnia is peace, literature, and inspiring.  :)
But John McTiernan is good, too.  :)

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

Each choice will be respected here :). Andrew Adamson added.

Ed, I see where you're coming from but don't underestimate fun genre movies. Buster Keaton used to be a funny slapstick comedian for the masses, and now he's also a cultural heritage :).

4.4K Messages

 • 

124K Points

Thanks, albstein.  :)

Champion

 • 

7K Messages

 • 

187K Points

3年前

ElMo got to my probable choice first so I'll have to deliberate. 'Very cool idea. 

845 Messages

 • 

34.3K Points

3年前

Good idea, You can consider Béla Tarr and Martín scorsese

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

Thank you. As all the choices come from IMDb users (one suggestion) each, you may nominate one :)

845 Messages

 • 

34.3K Points

I understand, so I nominate only Bela Tarr

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

Added :)

659 Messages

 • 

20K Points

3年前

There are many great directors whom I want to include in this list and it is a tough choice to think about only one them but I will nominate Anurag Kashyap.

(Someone who is trying to put quality content infront of Indian Audience)

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

Gangs of Wasseypur is cool :)

5.8K Messages

 • 

117.8K Points

3年前

FYC, just a thought. How about two-three sentences about why you are making this proposition and why there should be a Nobel prize for film. I can only assume your reasoning. But, if it were me, I would make these points.

1) Nobel concerned over his legacy, provided in his will four five prizes in world changing endeavors:Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature, and Peace.
2) Movies have displaced Literature, in influence and popularity since Nobel deaths in1896.
3) Therefore his award for a literary work "in an ideal direction"  should be theoretically expanded to include living director's "bodies of work" that have changed the world.

If the award existed prior to today, someone like Stanley Kramer would have gotten it for his "message film" contributions that tackled a number of social problem through film.

Wikepedia notes
The first three of these prizes are awarded for eminence in physical science, in chemistry and in medical science or physiology; the fourth is for literary work "in an ideal direction" and the fifth prize is to be given to the person or society that renders the greatest service to the cause of international fraternity, in the suppression or reduction of standing armies, or in the establishment or furtherance of peace congresses.[14]

The formulation for the literary prize being given for a work "in an ideal direction" (i idealisk riktning in Swedish), is cryptic and has caused much confusion. For many years, the Swedish Academy interpreted "ideal" as "idealistic" (idealistisk) and used it as a reason not to give the prize to important but less romantic authors, such as Henrik Ibsen and Leo Tolstoy. This interpretation has since been revised, and the prize has been awarded to, for example, Dario Fo and José Saramago, who do not belong to the camp of literary idealism.

Director Steven Spielberg described  Stanley Kramer as an "incredibly talented visionary", and "one of our great filmmakers, not just for the art and passion he put on screen, but for the impact he has made on the conscience of the world.

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

Thank you for your input, although after some consideration I prefer to leave the poll as it is. The original idealism does not seem to matter anymore (in fact, many of the literature laureates that come to mind were probably not idealists) and has apparently not been succeeded by another direction, and just as you say we do not know what Nobel meant by "ideal". I would like users to go by their own interpretation of what is "Nobel worthy".

5.8K Messages

 • 

117.8K Points

Thanks, I can understand the rationale. I would think that the Nobel committee could justify a literature prize to a screenwriter if they wanted to.

4.8K Messages

 • 

134.2K Points

I'm 100% with you on that one, urbane. And you're right about Stanley Kramer who was the first to handle very hot topics for the time and made movies that were not qualitative but also relevant: The Defiant Ones, Inherit the Wind, Guess Who's Coming for Dinner, Judgment at Nuremberg, even his zany Mad, Mad, Mad World was a satirical comment on people's greed.

 Even without a text, that's how I interpreted the idea of Nobel Prize for a director, a prize to be given by virtue of an accomplishment that goes beyond the limits of the cinematic excellence he or she reached. Miyazaki isn't in my Top 10 favorite directors but what he's done to raise awareness about environmental issues hasn't been equaled even by the most passionate ecologists, his Nausicaa alone should earn him that Nobel Prize if it existed.  One director should also be rewarded if he or she inspired or influenced many film-makers or found  new ways for film-making but even then, I think there should be enough consistency in his/her work to justify the nomination for a Nobel Prize, the director shouldn't just be a model.

For instance, I could nominate Spike Lee because he did a lot to raise the African-American voice seldom heard in movies, but I wouldn't nominate him just because he  was one of the first major African-American directors to make a name for himself. Symbols are good, but it's the body of work that should be considered.

5.8K Messages

 • 

117.8K Points

Like novels, it is easy to use the medium for dual purposes: to entertain, as well as, for social change.  More on topic, I would rather see Spike Lee get a Nobel for his films, contributions to the craft and use of film for social commentary than I would for George Lucas to get a Nobel for his films, contributions to the craft and technological advancements created by Lucasfilm subsidiaries. I can see a case for both though.

4.8K Messages

 • 

134.2K Points

Well, maybe it all comes down to one simple question: should you award the one who became an inspiration for the craft which means to his peers or an inspiration to the public? 

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

This is a tough nut to crack.

The nobel prize most similar to Film is Literature, of course. Among those that I'm somewhat familiar with, I'd say that Steinbeck and Hesse might fit the "ideal" kind, i.e. they inspire hope or argue for social change (although Hesse is never explicit in this and is more often pessimistic or mystic-spiritual). Then there's Hauptmann who does depict the plights of the lower classes but in a naturalist way, without a strong idealist appeal.

And then there are writers who are more of the opposite, they are bleak, cynical, pessimistic, inconclusive, or absurdist: Mann, Golding, Camus, Beckett, Grass, Jelinek.

And if we look at the reasons given by the committee, you will find ones like "master of the contemporary short story", "gives us fresh access to reality", and "that epicist of the female experience, who with scepticism, fire and visionary power has subjected a divided civilisation to scrutiny".

So again, I mighty appreciate the input from both of you, and what you said can serve as a guidance for others if they read it in the thread. But I find no objective and externally backed way to base the "ideal" criterion on.

4.8K Messages

 • 

134.2K Points

Well, when I talked about "achievement that goes beyond the limits of cinematic excellence" I didn't necessarily mean something that should be "inspirational" on a philosophical or social level, it can also be a work that set a template for many great artistic achievements, which is still about our human potential as creators. Let's not forget the MGM's slogan Ars Gratia Artis: Art for Art's sake. I guess directors like George Cukor, Vincente Minnelli or even Godard are as deserving as the others.

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

That makes sense. The way I see it the prize would go to someone who is not just competent on a technical level but who is really the main creative force of his movies.

4.8K Messages

 • 

134.2K Points

Lol, I'm pretty sure one can make awful movies by still being the main creative force behind :) this is why the technical level is important but there should be a great artistic value within the the created product or something that can be considered inspiring... well, I just mean it should take more than being just a good director. 

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

That's why I said "not just competent on a technical level", they need both :)

4.8K Messages

 • 

134.2K Points

I guess I'm looking for a factor of "undeniability" that doesn't exist... 

888 Messages

 • 

26.8K Points

3年前

Denis Villeneuve

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

Added :)

4.4K Messages

 • 

124K Points

3年前

Just a fun-fact; I would've picked Hitchcock but he's not living.

141 Messages

 • 

3.4K Points

3年前

From that list I'd choose Spielberg, but overall I think some of my top directors aren't on that list so take that into consideration.

Although not necessarily specific to Directing, for film-making in general I'd probably choose Tarantino. (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000233/)

There are so many great artists out there it's hard to choose, but he's definitely at the top of my list. I could probably more easily provide a top 25 than picking just one, but for now, Quentin gets my vote. :)

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

Added Tarantino :)

Do you have an IMDb account I can link to?

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

Never mind, found it :)

141 Messages

 • 

3.4K Points

Thanks. I think this link should work: https://www.imdb.com/user/ur88150264/?ref_=nv_usr_prof_2 

I'm relatively new around here so if I've formatted that link wrong let me know.

141 Messages

 • 

3.4K Points

Haha, you beat me to it :P

Champion

 • 

6.2K Messages

 • 

153.8K Points

3年前

alb, could you please correct the link to my profile page? :)

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

Sorry! The link has been corrected :)

1.9K Messages

 • 

52.5K Points

3年前

My choice: Martin Scorsese

1K Messages

 • 

46.7K Points

Added :)