how come we still talk primarily about directors? - rec.arts.movies.past-films

Message from discussion how come we still talk primarily about directors?

John R Rybock

View profile

More options Jun 12 2004, 1:00 pm

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films, alt.movies, rec.arts.movies.current-films, alt.cult-movies

From: John R Rybock <ryb...@comcast.net>

Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 01:00:19 -0400

Local: Sat, Jun 12 2004 1:00 pm

Subject: Re: how come we still talk primarily about directors?

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

On 10 Jun 2004 18:18:32 -0700, 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.

>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?

Directors get talked about most because they are, generally, the final
authority. Certainly, they work for the producers/studio, but they are
the ones whose vision influences things day to day - from script
polishing, to regular dealings with the FX folk to make the shots they
vision, to the actors and coaching them to give the performance they
want. to dealing with the cinematographer to get the look they want.

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.

Certainly, none of this is to disparage the hundreds of other people
who work on a film. But when discussing the overall piece, which is
what most discussion is about, talking about the director primarily is
important.

Reply to author Forward