Message from discussion
how come we still talk primarily about directors?
Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!ace79b22!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films,alt.movies,rec.arts.movies.current-films,alt.cult-movies
From: cla...@nospam.mindspring.com (Melquiades)
Subject: Re: how come we still talk primarily about directors?
Distribution: world
References: <7b98c3ee.0406101718.7e268f95@posting.google.com> <cab6me$in2$1@mws-stat-syd.cdn.telstra.com.au>
X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <ebgyc.22694$Yd3.140@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:54:02 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.32.137.98
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net 1086951242 66.32.137.98 (Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:54:02 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:54:02 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
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).
|
