Thanks to Bill and jpcoursodon for the comments... and thanks to Fred
for correcting me on Brakhage.

First of all, I wouldn't actually call the new book "American Cinema:
Toward the New Millennium". It would be "American Cinema after 1962:
What the fuck happened to US?"

I have seen Orson Welles' "Lady from Shanghai" twice this weekend
(both on 35mm) and thought about how impossible it was to explain how
far below Welles, Hitchcock, Cukor, Minelli and Sirk the Hollywood
cinema has fallen. What is called "Independent Cinema" doesn't give
much hope either. And yes, I'm making these judgements based on my
aesthetic values; don't know how I would write anything based on
someone else's. Sarris was aware that some directors' films worked on
a formal level and some not, and he seemed to like both, with a bias
towards the former. My "bias" is stronger than his and I do not think
that Preston Sturges (a great comedian) should be evaluated in the
same pages with a real artist such as George Cukor.

Even Michael Mann or David Fincher, although I have huge respect for
their cinema, cannot even come close to what was achieved almost
ordinarily by Hollywood in the 50's. Just take some of the films of
the year 1958: "Tarnished Angels", "Vertigo", "Man of the
West", "Some Came Running", "Gigi", "Bonjour Tristesse", "Wind across
the Everglades", "Bitter Victory", "Touch of Evil".
Which director on your list made any films even comparable to these
in terms of beauty?

From the list of directors you sent, I could add David Lynch to "Less
than Meets the Eye"; Brian de Palma and Paul Thomas Anderson
to "Lightly Likable" and Farrelly Brothers to "Make Way for the
Clowns". I'm curious about Abel Ferrara since Tag Gallagher praises
him so much.

I haven't seen the films of some people you mentioned. For the ones I
have seen, I mostly enjoyed watching their films but none of them
gave me pleasures that can be compared to what I get from "Lady from
Shanghai". They weigh so little compared to "Lady from Shanghai", or
even (a standard much below that) "Collateral", that I don't see any
reason to talk about them. Remember that we are adding to Sarris so
if you are planning to add someone in one of his categories, you
should be able to compare the new addition with the old ones in the
same category.

Zach proposes Monte Hellman and Blake Edwards for the "Pantheon". I
love both of them, especially Edwards, but what happens when you
compare them to Orson Welles for example? (Edwards is listed under a
very good category in Sarris' book)

By the way, I believe I have one more addition to the
category "Expressive Esoterica": Mike Figgis. I liked all of his
films when they came out and saw "Miss Julie" on DVD last year.
Assuming "Miss Julie" is not an anomaly, he has one of the most
cinematic eyes around. I love the poetry he can make just by playing
with the focus. Too bad I haven't seen anything he made after that.

Yoel