some people are more partial to 'auteur theory' than others. some reject it passionately. yet, all of us still talk of the director as being the primary artistic force behind movies.
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?
but shouldn't anti-auteurists call this figure a prodiractortographeditorgaffer?
>some people are more partial to 'auteur theory' than others. some >reject it passionately. >yet, all of us still talk of the director as being the primary >artistic force behind movies.
>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?
>but shouldn't anti-auteurists call this figure a >prodiractortographeditorgaffer?
I agree it's a combination of all these ares that make a film. People tend to focus on what they see or hear the most about. Hence the reason the actors are often perceived as the talent behind the movies when they only offer a piece to the puzzle. The directors names are so widely used as a marketing tool along side the actors that if a movie performs poorly the average person regards the director or actor as being the reason. I am constantly amazed at the diffrence sound and music can make to a film. mike
> some people are more partial to 'auteur theory' than others
Why not ask who are the top ten auteurists and anti-auteurists in this newsgroup?
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.
Is there value to studying films grouped by director? Sure, often. Just like studying by genre; doesn't mean genre is the overwhelming be-all and end-all force driving the making of films, but it makes study managable and frequently enlightening. So I have just downgraded the theory to wishy-washy nebulousity. OTOH there are clearly Welles films, Fords, Capras, Hawks, Boettichers, etc. These men are artists every bit as much as the greatest painters who single-handedly produced their art (or supervised the brushes of their employees, students or apprentices). OTOH, despite immense bodies of exceptional films, are there Curtiz or Bacon films? Probably not; there are literally dozens of films by each of these guys where I simply can't find them at all. But I have a hard time understanding how, working under the same system and with the same craftsmen as dozens of other directors, they were so successful if they are not the artists primarily responsible for the product. I've got so many other hands on this issue that I've just downgraded myself to #42 on the list. No commitment.
symphonic...@hotmail.com (choral reef) wrote: >some people are more partial to 'auteur theory' than others. some >reject it passionately. >yet, all of us still talk of the director as being the primary >artistic force behind movies.
>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.
Most of us probably just refer to the director as a metonymic (or synecdochic) shortcut; it's for the sake of convenience.
>but shouldn't anti-auteurists call this figure a >prodiractortographeditorgaffer?
Well, now. . . in a long career of unusual suggestions, you've really outdone yourself there!
In article <cab6me$in...@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au>, "mike" <m...@mike.com> wrote:
>choral reef wrote in message ><7b98c3ee.0406101718.7e268...@posting.google.com>... >>some people are more partial to 'auteur theory' than others. some >>reject it passionately. >>yet, all of us still talk of the director as being the primary >>artistic force behind movies.
>>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?
>>but shouldn't anti-auteurists call this figure a >>prodiractortographeditorgaffer?
>I agree it's a combination of all these ares that make a film. People tend >to focus on what they see or hear the most about. Hence the reason the >actors are often perceived as the talent behind the movies when they only >offer a piece to the puzzle. The directors names are so widely used as a >marketing tool along side the actors that if a movie performs poorly the >average person regards the director or actor as being the reason. I am >constantly amazed at the diffrence sound and music can make to a film. >mike
I think it really depends on the director. For example, a Tarantino, Wes Anderson or P.T. Anderson is going to have final say on the music used in their films (especially existing music, as opposed to score).
> yet, all of us still talk of the director as being the primary > artistic force behind movies.
> 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.
It's a shame that writers aren't given the lions share of the credit that they truly deserve, since without them everybody from the director on down to the janitor wouldn't have a job.
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.
estas...@att.net (Ed Stasiak) wrote: > 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.
> Remove the writer thou, and you have nothing.
Sorry, but this argument doesn't hold water.
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.
In article <d3aeee5b.0406111337.29ff0...@posting.google.com>,
jayembeeNoS...@snurcher.com (jayembee) wrote: > In fact, I would argue that writers are probably replaced > more often than directors.
Film making is a collaborative medium and usually, the directors are suppose to have the final authority on the artistic side of things. But we know producers often overrule 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.
Who comes up with the "vision" to do the movie? Do all directors story-board how the movie is going to look or are there "visual consultants" or "designers" who determine the look of a movie? As well as the FX people who can say what kinds of effects are or are not possible?
> >some people are more partial to 'auteur theory' than others. some > >reject it passionately. > >yet, all of us still talk of the director as being the primary > >artistic force behind movies.
> >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.
> Most of us probably just refer to the director as a metonymic (or > synecdochic) shortcut; it's for the sake of convenience.
but you mus surly know on barry lyndon the gaffer and sound guy was maybe replaceable but not kuby.
> > some people are more partial to 'auteur theory' than others
> Why not ask who are the top ten auteurists and anti-auteurists in this > newsgroup?
> 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.
> Is there value to studying films grouped by director? Sure, often. Just > like studying by genre; doesn't mean genre is the overwhelming be-all > and end-all force driving the making of films, but it makes study > managable and frequently enlightening. So I have just downgraded the > theory to wishy-washy nebulousity. OTOH there are clearly Welles films, > Fords, Capras, Hawks, Boettichers, etc. These men are artists every bit > as much as the greatest painters who single-handedly produced their art > (or supervised the brushes of their employees, students or > apprentices). OTOH, despite immense bodies of exceptional films, are > there Curtiz or Bacon films? Probably not; there are literally dozens > of films by each of these guys where I simply can't find them at all. > But I have a hard time understanding how, working under the same system > and with the same craftsmen as dozens of other directors, they were so > successful if they are not the artists primarily responsible for the > product. I've got so many other hands on this issue that I've just > downgraded myself to #42 on the list. No commitment.
cuz there's director as Personal artist--welles, bergy, fellini--and director as able craftsman--zinnemann, curtiz, siegal, zemeckis.
casablanca is a great genre movie, not personal filmmaking.
there are directors who fall somewhere in between: ford, hawks, such.
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:03:09 -0400, Heynony <nos...@noway.com> wrote: >Why not ask who are the top ten auteurists and anti-auteurists in this >newsgroup?
This whole discussion reminds me of how some look at pro football. If the team loses, it's the quarterback's fault; if the team wins, the quarterback gets the praise, the publicity and the money. It's not true for football, and it's not true for movies. I guess I'm not an auteur.
