There are few things in cinema more thrilling than screening a filmmaker’s first feature and realizing that, somehow, they have it all together. They have something to say, and a distinct perspective from which to say it. They seem to understand instinctively how all the tools of cinema can work together to deliver us somewhere we haven’t been before. There is urgency embedded in the work, making us want to connect right here and now and follow what comes next. There’s courage and vulnerability. A distinctly personal perspective somehow ripples out universally, getting under our skin and into our hearts and minds. Damn, how did they manage all that?!
How many films do most filmmakers have in them? Will they grow significantly with each new work? Will they even get the chances they require? How do they pick themselves back up when we or the system may toss them out or down? Deepen? Will they take the risks needed? Get stuck in the rut of doing “it” again? Or will they find the supporters and community needed to lift them up and out? Or is this one all that we will see?
Perhaps the only thing more exciting than a first feature is “the masterpiece,” the time when you see the filmmaker has hit their stride and somehow brought everything together in a way that lets it all sing. And sometimes that masterpiece and that first film are one and the same thing.
I recently built a list of great first features of the last fifty years. I put it together initially because I had the great pleasure (and privilege) of being part of the Debut Film Jury at the Venice Film Festival this year. We watched twenty-three debut films. And we got to give away $100,000 to one film. While I was enjoying that incredible feast, I wondered what I should compare the movies I was screening to, and started thinking about other debut films I’ve seen. Once I started putting the films together, the list began revealing things I hadn’t been thinking about when I started. And you wonder why I like lists so much?
The films on that list are not, I should stress, the definitive best first features of the last fifty years. I started with the films from 1976 through 2026 that I have seen and would recommend, for one reason or another—and, I should add, the ones I can currently remember. I am sure I forgot some. I’ll publish that list separately tomorrow. I also have a growing “To Watch” list of acclaimed first features I haven’t seen yet. I am keeping that one private, but I am sure that list has some things to teach me too once I get to them.
The debut feature is incredibly important, particularly to American independent cinema. You could tell a substantial part of the history of the period through first films alone: sex, lies, and videotape, Reservoir Dogs, Metropolitan, The Unbelievable Truth, Laws of Gravity, River of Grass, Walking and Talking, In the Bedroom, and many more. For a culture built around some filmmakers getting an opportunity and trying to make it count, maybe that shouldn’t be surprising.
My own history undoubtedly tilts my list in that direction too. I think I made twenty-three first features as a producer (so far). And having spent more than forty years immersed in American filmmaking, I have simply seen more American independent films than I have films from many other parts of the world. So forgive me, but my list slants heavily in that direction.
The numbers make my American and Western bias pretty hard to miss. About two-thirds of the films on that upcoming list come from the United States and Canada. Europe represents the next-largest group. East Asia, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia and Southeast Asia are represented much more lightly. At least it shows what I should watch next if I want to see the big picture.
The same is true of gender. Roughly three-quarters of the films currently on the list were directed by men and about a quarter by women, with a small number made by mixed directing teams. The gender balance improves as we get closer to the present, but the disparity remains obvious. I am a product of my times, and like these times, I am in constant change. The numbers tell us something about film history, something about access to directing opportunities, something about the canon we inherited—and something about the gaps in my own viewing. I will do better.
The great majority of the filmmakers I included made their first features before turning forty. America is youth obsessed and so is American cinema. Our media loves to tell the story of the young filmmaker arriving seemingly out of nowhere, overflowing with talent. You’d think that story would get a bit… old!
But I find the later debuts equally interesting. Sometimes the first-feature opportunity comes later, after someone has already built a career in another form. Robert Redford dived into Ordinary People already armed with a pretty nice résumé. Maggie Gyllenhaal made The Lost Daughter after she had already captivated us many times over. Jan Švankmajer spent decades making extraordinary short films before finally making Alice. Charlie Kaufman had become an industry-adjective thanks to his unique scripts and concepts before directing Synecdoche, New York. Their paths may require the same ambition, resilience and persistence as those of youth, but they also arrive with banks of knowledge. Experience in another form can become creative capital once the opportunity finally comes.
I also confess this: fiction dominates this list. As much as I love them, documentary and essay films represent only a relatively small portion of it. Animation is barely present at all. I need to try harder. I hope you can forgive me. We shall see, won’t we?
But the demographics were only the beginning of what the exercise revealed. The films themselves started showing me something else: first features tend to expose how cinema actually gets reinvigorated. They are often how we get out of our ruts.
So often you can already see the essential filmmaker in the first movie. Blood Simple holds all the Coens’ fatalism, violence and absurdity. Maborosi captures Kore-eda’s attention to grief and absence. The Unbelievable Truth could hardly be more Hal Hartley, at least first-half Hartley, that is. River of Grass is recognizably Kelly Reichardt even though her cinema would become something quieter and more distinct.
Maybe first features sometimes tell us more than later ones because they arrive before success starts imposing expectations—before a filmmaker has a “brand,” before everyone knows what their next movie is supposed to be. If a filmmaker is gifted with a hit right out of the box, what happens? They are encouraged to do more of the same, and not to change.
I’d love to find a deep dive on how each of these films was made, because those methods are no doubt as varied as the films themselves. Some directors get meaningful industry support, whereas others appear to have made the movie because nobody was ever going to invite them to make one anyway. Is one approach better than the other for a sustainable and generative career? Primer, Clerks, Funny Ha Ha, Killer of Sheep, Laws of Gravity and Medicine for Melancholy come from a very different production universe than Ordinary People, Body Heat or American Beauty. Budget may shape the film. It doesn’t determine whether the film matters. And does either help build careers?
First features also remind us that filmmakers rarely emerge alone. Sure, we like the mythology of the auteur materializing out of nowhere, but many of my favorite first features came out of communities: the LA Rebellion, downtown New York filmmaking, New Queer Cinema, Sundance, regional filmmaking cultures, groups of actors and producers who kept showing up for one another. The individual voice matters, but so does the environment that allowed the voice to be heard.
Read more
