for instance, like LOR or not, we generally discuss it as the
visionary creation of peter jackson.  few, if any, have mentioned the
writers, editor, cameraman, CGI geeks, etc by name.

when we like or dislike a ron howard film, we discuss it in terms of
howard and not the writer, the editor, cinematographer.

whether we like or dislike titanic or attack of the clones all comes
down to how we think of lucas or cameron.

i guess 'auteurists' are specifically crediting or blaming the
director but how about anti-auteurists?  do you guys mention the
director in a comprehensive sense, as an embodiment of the entire
creative process behind the movie?

I would nominate myself as about #23 on the auteurist list, at best.
Like a lukewarm agnostic who can't commit,  I have so many exceptions,
footnotes, uncertainties and yes-buts to my belief in the theory that
my status as a card-carrying auteurist has long since been revoked.

IMO Peter Jackson & Co. did a pretty good job with Tolkien's "Lord
of the Rings" but like every movie ever made, he and everybody else
involved were simply technicians who ultimately could have been
replaced by anybody and the movie still could have been made.

Yes, it's true that the director and all of the other
technicians "could have been replaced by anybody and
the movie still could have been made". But the key point
is that they are *replaced*.

But when you say "remove the writer though, and you have
nothing" suggests that the writer cannot be replaced as
anyone else involved in making the film can be. This is
bogus. Writers can replaced just as easily as anyone else.

In fact, I would argue that writers are probably replaced
more often than directors.

And writers are pretty low on the totem pole, below the directors and
actors who like to infuse their "input" on the script.

Directors are more like a managerial position.  They are chosen based on
their past financial performance (as are actors) and expected to deliver
the film in a way that enhances the economic value of the studio
property.

Particularly in these FX-fests, directors appear to be guiding the
actors how to move in front of a blue screen rather than drawing
emotional responses from them.

casablanca is a great genre movie, not personal filmmaking.

Like with any CEO, you have differing styles of running things. On one
end, you have the Kubricks, who work to create every painstaking
detail, to Eastwoods, who sorta let people do their own work in their
own way. But even in the later case, it is a specific influence that
creates the final work.

There is a new film by Jorgen Leth that they discussed today on NPR's
All Things Considered (I have not seen it yet). But it was 5 remakes
of the director's early short film, The Perfect Human, each one with
an "obstruction", or requirement (i.e. one had to be all in quick
shots (the antithesis of the first film), another animated, etc...). I
bring it up, and plan on seeing it myself, because it sounds like an
excellent chance to see how a director works - they all have their
personal "obstructions", or things they prefer to do, so this is a
chance to see the same script made 5 different ways.

What the auteur theory came out of was the sense that film was a processed,
impersonal medium with a contrived, stagey air of unreality about it.
Imagine the studio system as a conveyor belt, each movie emerging with
'product' stamped on it. What it had in glamour and accessibility and
shorthand realism, it lacked in psychological purity. So, they sniffed out
what struck them as psychologically pure and canonized it.

The dream of Truffaut especially was to create a cinema as intensely
personal, as pure, as the novel. As a form, at its best, the novel gives you
a sense of the internal life of the writer to the point of becoming a
controlled psychic exorcism with all of his experiences, fears, and desires
gushing out, usually between the words. It can feel like the writer is
sitting in a room and directly addressing you, offering universal truths
without being didactic, and we revere writers who can reach that level. Why
can't a movie be the same? Must film be an irreparably schizo medium?
What's between the words in Hitchcock?

At least that's the impression that I get from 'The 400 Blows.' I think
Truffaut may have said as much somewhere.

And you know how those Frenchies love their 'theories.'

The problem is that film is made with a dark room full of people in mind
(you all). Novels are conceived in terms of the reader, an individual (you).
Film is experienced collectively, the novel personally. It's public rather
than private speech, with about a dozen authors at that! And public speech,
for better and worse, can never be as nakedly honest as private speech.
People are always more guarded and self-conscious -- rhetorical -- speaking
to a crowd, and a crowd has a psychology and set of responses all its own.

The power of film is its mass hypnotic effect, somewhat like Hitler's
speeches. It makes us feel part of something larger, and closer to the other
people viewing. You're an emotional hostage. Because of that it's probably
the most politically powerful medium: think of how much 20th century
totalitarianism invested in it.

In any movie ever made one could replace the director, lead actor,
hair dresser, caterer, ect on down the line and the movie can still
happen and thou I'm not suggesting that if Steven Segal had been
cast as Frodo, a "LotR" movie would still have been a success, with
_no story_ there simply is _no movie_.

There' this hot chick, she really wants to be in a movie, she'll
do anything to get into the film but she's really really stupid.

How stupid is she?  She's so stupid...she sleeps with the
writer!

1. think of woody allen and bergman. both have used sven nykvist, but
hannah and her sisters is ultimately a woody allen movie despite its
bergmanesque touches because its overall tone and spirit is
unmistakably allenian.  godard has worked with different cameramen but
all his films are, above all, godardian. godard wanted belmondo for a
certain movie and didn't get him. it's still a godard movie, with or
without belmondo.

2. jack nicholson has worked with milos forman, john huston, dennis
hopper, but under antonioni's wing, he was an antonionian
character--in the passenger.
of course, some directors are less demanding and perfectionist, and
are willing to let others work autonomously or interpret things their
own way.  but directors with strong personalities or total visions
want complete control and they get it.  and, it usually helps to have
a director with a strong vision and personality because
cinematographer, editor, sound guy, actors, etc. need instructions;
they may offer advice to the director but as a reponse. if  everyone
on the set does as he pleases, it's gonna be chaos. they need a man
with a comprehensive, unified and unifying vision. unlike sports,
there is nothing left to chance in art.  a coach tells a running back
to do whatever but it's stop-and-go and much is a matter of chance and
the other team. but art is worked on and on until you come up with a
fully realized product. if a shooting goes wrong, you reshoot it. if
an actor bumbles his lines, you make him read it again. and, in order
to bring it altogether, you need a guiding hand and vision.  if there
was no director, he would have to be invented. the writer would have
to take the director's job or the producer. or the actor. or the
cinematographer.  all these areas of filmmaking are specialized. it's
the director who's the comprehensive author behind the film.

3. a movie--even a great movie--need not be personal. of course, most
movies are not, for which the main author is the box office or
catering to public taste/demand.  but, midnight run is a great
nonpersonal movie with a formulaic script which was intelligently
written, wonderfully acted, ably directed.  a great car may not be a
work of art but it's a great piece of engineering and it's better than
shit pretending to be art.

4. however, i can't imagine a personal film without an overriding
author, and in most cases this author is the director or the director
in tandem with the writer, or on occasion with cinematopher or
composer.  last year at marienbad is a sterile writer's exercise but
resnais and his cinematographer's visual expression is breathtaking
and has to count for something. and, once upon a time in the west is
basically leone and morricone. leone furnished the visual language but
it'd lose half its power without morricone's outstanding score. it's
like jagger/richards or holland-dozier-holland. cooperative alchemy.
still, leone is the more important author since even without
morricone's score you'd have the movie but no leone, no movie; indeed,
no reason for the music to even exist.
the writer/director partnership is usually much more important. among
personal filmmakers, the director is often the writer--mamet,
antonioni, kurosawa(co-writer), bergman, lynch, peckinpah(co-writer),
coppola(co-writer).
still, usually in a movie partnership, the writer concedes that his
role is subservient to the director. he accepts that it's up to the
director to execute the final product.  he accepts that the director
is the boss and has the final say. otherwise, if the writer overrides
the director's decisions, then the writer is the defacto director,
just as demi moore who overrode joffe for scarlet letter was actress
as defactor director, a horrendous one from what i hear.
this is probably why the best writers work on novels or plays since
they know not to expect full autonomy working on a film where producer
or director is the ultimate boss.  no wonder that so many movies are
based on novels completed by  writers working on their own.  they
could not have produced those novels with a producer or director
breathing down their necks. indeed, when writers agree to work for
film, it's usually as a hired hack and don't get to do what they
really wanna do.  faulkner, gatsby, huxley, hemingway all worked for
hollywood, writing thirdrate scripts or doctoring them, but they were
always on the sideline.

the director is really a misnomer. a film director does more than
direct or interpret. he creates. a stage director is ultimately
limited by the stage. he may guide actors in a manner or call for
certain set designs but the stage remains static. ultimately, it's
actors and the script.  besides, the stage can never convince the
audience as a completely autonomous reality.  this is not so with
movies where the director--with all the technological power in his
hands--can do so much more to interpret, reshape, expand, explore,
warp the original material. rather than just a guide, he becomes the
shaper. not merely a presenter, he takes us on a journey. in music, we
think of composer and the conductor.  the movie director's conduction
is composition.
a director cannot NOT create. the medium becomes the art. our senses
becomes digested thru his vision.

5. there are certain movies where the director is replaceable, like in
the average hollywood genre movie where the formula is
well-established and the director merely goes thru set motions. in
these movies, the director is as replaceable as the editor or sound
guy or cinematographer... unless the director is a man of supreme
talent and vituosity, capable of doing stuff others can only dream of.
 think of john ford, steven spielberg.  ford westerns are genre pieces
and so are spielberg's action spectacles but only they knew how to
realize their full potential.
however, this is certainly not the case with personal films. replace
kurosawa with mizoguchi on seven samurai and it's a totally different
movie. have sydney pollock do the wild bunch and it'll be something
else. peckinpah's persona would have been somewhat different, i think.
i can't imagine masculin-feminin by anyone other than godard.
mulholland drive and eraserhead are lynch all the way. 2001 is kubrick
though dr. strangelove is a great alchemic product of the genius of
kubrick, sellars, and terry southern though kubrick still deserves the
lion's share for its greatness.

1. it depends on the writer. if he was hired by the producer to write
a formulaic script, he's a hack. the true 'author' of most films is
genre expectations, audience demand, and producer's financial-centric
guidelines.  most hollywood movies are made by poll numbers and box
office. LOR is tolkien pared down to CGI videogame effects.  if the
writer was hired by the director to fine-tune a script, the writer is
not THE author of the movie.

2. there are more than one layer of 'writing' in a movie. there is the
initial story and concept which could based on hearsay, newspaper
article, book--novel, biography, etc.  for example, some movies credit
story to one person while writing credits go to another which is like
an autobiography written with the help of a professinal writer.
then there is the layer of writing where the script is finished. this
begats the screenplay. but, everything that comes afterwards is also
part of the writing. writing for film is more than characterization
and dialogue. writing includes visual conceptualization and planning.
for example, in a novel, the writing isn't only dialogue but also
descriptions of place or mood or weather.  oftentimes, a screenplay
will only offer barebones story and dialogue. it's the director who
has to find the proper visual language to fatten it with flesh. for
example, the use of CU, zoom, pan, crane shot, editing, etc. are all
part of the language of cinema and expression. it's part of the
writing.  the reason why so many great novelists or playwrights make
poor filmmakers is because they don't have a grasp of filmmaking
language. they know how to write dialogue and characters but not how
to write with images, a talent closer to music, fine art, and
architecture.
a truly complete screenplay should be based on the finished movie and
describe in detail every aspect of the film--use of color, light and
dark, camera movement, editing, use of sound, etc--because they are
all part of the expression of film, usually ordered and guided by the
director.  similarly, verdi's otello is much more than shakespeare's
play. the musical performance is the real language of opera, and verdi
was the main author, not shakespeare.
lady from shanghai is a great movie because welles was the author.
yes, it's based on some cheap pulp novel, but the movie's greatness is
not the result of the conventional noirish twists and dialogue but
welles's visual expansion--filmic writing--on the original source.
if lady from shanghai had been directed by some hollywood hack, it
would have been just another forgettable crime thriller.
even when based on great material, the director makes all the
difference. campion's portrait of a lady is painfully bad.  house of
mirth is great.  lean's great expections is a classic. the ethan hawke
version is godawful.
welles' magnificent ambersons is magnificent.  arau's version based on
welles' very script is piss poor. writer or original conceptualist
deserves more credit than he deserves but director is almost always
the key. mario puzo said as much when he compared coppola's godfather
with cimino's sicilian. sicilian is clearly the better book but
godfather the movie is a classic whereas cimino's sicilian is
embarassing.

3. sometimes the line between writer and director isn't clear. there
are of course writer-directors like bergman and antonioni who are
comparable to singersongwriters like dylan. there are also creative
partners where writing/directing is blurred as with the coen brothers,
wachowski brothers, kaufman & jonze.

4. the debate is often really about auteur ideal than auteur theory.
should the director have the primary position in the making of movies?
 in the reality of hollywood genre movies, this is NOT so.  but
cinephiles want personal art which requires a vision and artistic
style and personality.  like bill buckley once said, mona lisa could
not have been created with everyone getting one dab at it.

1. it depends on the writer. if he was hired by the producer to write
a formulaic script, he's a hack. the true 'author' of most films is
genre expectations, audience demand, and producer's financial-centric
guidelines.  most hollywood movies are made by poll numbers and box
office. LOR is tolkien pared down to CGI videogame effects.  if the
writer was hired by the director to fine-tune a script, the writer is
not THE author of the movie.

2. there are more than one layer of 'writing' in a movie. there is the
initial story and concept which could based on hearsay, newspaper
article, book--novel, biography, etc.  for example, some movies credit
story to one person while writing credits go to another which is like
an autobiography written with the help of a professinal writer.
then there is the layer of writing where the script is finished. this
begats the screenplay. but, everything that comes afterwards is also
part of the writing. writing for film is more than characterization
and dialogue. writing includes visual conceptualization and planning.
for example, in a novel, the writing isn't only dialogue but also
descriptions of place or mood or weather.  oftentimes, a screenplay
will only offer barebones story and dialogue. it's the director who
has to find the proper visual language to fatten it with flesh. for
example, the use of CU, zoom, pan, crane shot, editing, etc. are all
part of the language of cinema and expression. it's part of the
writing.  the reason why so many great novelists or playwrights make
poor filmmakers is because they don't have a grasp of filmmaking
language. they know how to write dialogue and characters but not how
to write with images, a talent closer to music, fine art, and
architecture.
a truly complete screenplay should be based on the finished movie and
describe in detail every aspect of the film--use of color, light and
dark, camera movement, editing, use of sound, etc--because they are
all part of the expression of film, usually ordered and guided by the
director.  similarly, verdi's otello is much more than shakespeare's
play. the musical performance is the real language of opera, and verdi
was the main author, not shakespeare.
lady from shanghai is a great movie because welles was the author.
yes, it's based on some cheap pulp novel, but the movie's greatness is
not the result of the conventional noirish twists and dialogue but
welles's visual expansion--filmic writing--on the original source.
if lady from shanghai had been directed by some hollywood hack, it
would have been just another forgettable crime thriller.
even when based on great material, the director makes all the
difference. campion's portrait of a lady is painfully bad.  house of
mirth is great.  lean's great expections is a classic. the ethan hawke
version is godawful.
welles' magnificent ambersons is magnificent.  arau's version based on
welles' very script is piss poor. writer or original conceptualist
deserves more credit than he deserves but director is almost always
the key. mario puzo said as much when he compared coppola's godfather
with cimino's sicilian. sicilian is clearly the better book but
godfather the movie is a classic whereas cimino's sicilian is
embarassing.

3. sometimes the line between writer and director isn't clear. there
are of course writer-directors like bergman and antonioni who are
comparable to singersongwriters like dylan. there are also creative
partners where writing/directing is blurred as with the coen brothers,
wachowski brothers, kaufman & jonze.

4. the debate is often really about auteur ideal than auteur theory.
should the director have the primary position in the making of movies?
 in the reality of hollywood genre movies, this is NOT so.  but
cinephiles want personal art which requires a vision and artistic
style and personality.  like bill buckley once said, mona lisa could
not have been created with everyone getting one dab at it.

1. it depends on the writer. if he was hired by the producer to write
a formulaic script, he's a hack. the true 'author' of most films is
genre expectations, audience demand, and producer's financial-centric
guidelines.  most hollywood movies are made by poll numbers and box
office. LOR is tolkien pared down to CGI videogame effects.  if the
writer was hired by the director to fine-tune a script, the writer is
not THE author of the movie.

2. there are more than one layer of 'writing' in a movie. there is the
initial story and concept which could based on hearsay, newspaper
article, book--novel, biography, etc.  for example, some movies credit
story to one person while writing credits go to another which is like
an autobiography written with the help of a professinal writer.
then there is the layer of writing where the script is finished. this
begats the screenplay. but, everything that comes afterwards is also
part of the writing. writing for film is more than characterization
and dialogue. writing includes visual conceptualization and planning.
for example, in a novel, the writing isn't only dialogue but also
descriptions of place or mood or weather.  oftentimes, a screenplay
will only offer barebones story and dialogue. it's the director who
has to find the proper visual language to fatten it with flesh. for
example, the use of CU, zoom, pan, crane shot, editing, etc. are all
part of the language of cinema and expression. it's part of the
writing.  the reason why so many great novelists or playwrights make
poor filmmakers is because they don't have a grasp of filmmaking
language. they know how to write dialogue and characters but not how
to write with images, a talent closer to music, fine art, and
architecture.
a truly complete screenplay should be based on the finished movie and
describe in detail every aspect of the film--use of color, light and
dark, camera movement, editing, use of sound, etc--because they are
all part of the expression of film, usually ordered and guided by the
director.  similarly, verdi's otello is much more than shakespeare's
play. the musical performance is the real language of opera, and verdi
was the main author, not shakespeare.
lady from shanghai is a great movie because welles was the author.
yes, it's based on some cheap pulp novel, but the movie's greatness is
not the result of the conventional noirish twists and dialogue but
welles's visual expansion--filmic writing--on the original source.
if lady from shanghai had been directed by some hollywood hack, it
would have been just another forgettable crime thriller.
even when based on great material, the director makes all the
difference. campion's portrait of a lady is painfully bad.  house of
mirth is great.  lean's great expections is a classic. the ethan hawke
version is godawful.
welles' magnificent ambersons is magnificent.  arau's version based on
welles' very script is piss poor. writer or original conceptualist
deserves more credit than he deserves but director is almost always
the key. mario puzo said as much when he compared coppola's godfather
with cimino's sicilian. sicilian is clearly the better book but
godfather the movie is a classic whereas cimino's sicilian is
embarassing.

3. sometimes the line between writer and director isn't clear. there
are of course writer-directors like bergman and antonioni who are
comparable to singersongwriters like dylan. there are also creative
partners where writing/directing is blurred as with the coen brothers,
wachowski brothers, kaufman & jonze.

4. the debate is often really about auteur ideal than auteur theory.
should the director have the primary position in the making of movies?
 in the reality of hollywood genre movies, this is NOT so.  but
cinephiles want personal art which requires a vision and artistic
style and personality.  like bill buckley once said, mona lisa could
not have been created with everyone getting one dab at it.

1. it depends on the writer. if he was hired by the producer to write
a formulaic script, he's a hack. the true 'author' of most films is
genre expectations, audience demand, and producer's financial-centric
guidelines.  most hollywood movies are made by poll numbers and box
office. LOR is tolkien pared down to CGI videogame effects.  if the
writer was hired by the director to fine-tune a script, the writer is
not THE author of the movie.

2. there are more than one layer of 'writing' in a movie. there is the
initial story and concept which could based on hearsay, newspaper
article, book--novel, biography, etc.  for example, some movies credit
story to one person while writing credits go to another which is like
an autobiography written with the help of a professinal writer.
then there is the layer of writing where the script is finished. this
begats the screenplay. but, everything that comes afterwards is also
part of the writing. writing for film is more than characterization
and dialogue. writing includes visual conceptualization and planning.
for example, in a novel, the writing isn't only dialogue but also
descriptions of place or mood or weather.  oftentimes, a screenplay
will only offer barebones story and dialogue. it's the director who
has to find the proper visual language to fatten it with flesh. for
example, the use of CU, zoom, pan, crane shot, editing, etc. are all
part of the language of cinema and expression. it's part of the
writing.  the reason why so many great novelists or playwrights make
poor filmmakers is because they don't have a grasp of filmmaking
language. they know how to write dialogue and characters but not how
to write with images, a talent closer to music, fine art, and
architecture.
a truly complete screenplay should be based on the finished movie and
describe in detail every aspect of the film--use of color, light and
dark, camera movement, editing, use of sound, etc--because they are
all part of the expression of film, usually ordered and guided by the
director.  similarly, verdi's otello is much more than shakespeare's
play. the musical performance is the real language of opera, and verdi
was the main author, not shakespeare.
lady from shanghai is a great movie because welles was the author.
yes, it's based on some cheap pulp novel, but the movie's greatness is
not the result of the conventional noirish twists and dialogue but
welles's visual expansion--filmic writing--on the original source.
if lady from shanghai had been directed by some hollywood hack, it
would have been just another forgettable crime thriller.
even when based on great material, the director makes all the
difference. campion's portrait of a lady is painfully bad.  house of
mirth is great.  lean's great expections is a classic. the ethan hawke
version is godawful.
welles' magnificent ambersons is magnificent.  arau's version based on
welles' very script is piss poor. writer or original conceptualist
deserves more credit than he deserves but director is almost always
the key. mario puzo said as much when he compared coppola's godfather
with cimino's sicilian. sicilian is clearly the better book but
godfather the movie is a classic whereas cimino's sicilian is
embarassing.

3. sometimes the line between writer and director isn't clear. there
are of course writer-directors like bergman and antonioni who are
comparable to singersongwriters like dylan. there are also creative
partners where writing/directing is blurred as with the coen brothers,
wachowski brothers, kaufman & jonze.

4. the debate is often really about auteur ideal than auteur theory.
should the director have the primary position in the making of movies?
 in the reality of hollywood genre movies, this is NOT so.  but
cinephiles want personal art which requires a vision and artistic
style and personality.  like bill buckley once said, mona lisa could
not have been created with everyone getting one dab at it.