|
|
rec.arts.movies.past-films |
On 10 Jun 2004 18:18:32 -0700, symphonic...@hotmail.com (choral reef) >for instance, like LOR or not, we generally discuss it as the >when we like or dislike a ron howard film, we discuss it in terms of >whether we like or dislike titanic or attack of the clones all comes >i guess 'auteurists' are specifically crediting or blaming the >but shouldn't anti-auteurists call this figure a Like with any CEO, you have differing styles of running things. On one There is a new film by Jorgen Leth that they discussed today on NPR's Certainly, none of this is to disparage the hundreds of other people
wrote:
>some people are more partial to 'auteur theory' than others. some Directors get talked about most because they are, generally, the final
>reject it passionately.
>yet, all of us still talk of the director as being the primary
>artistic force behind movies.
>visionary creation of peter jackson. few, if any, have mentioned the
>writers, editor, cameraman, CGI geeks, etc by name.
>howard and not the writer, the editor, cinematographer.
>down to how we think of lucas or cameron.
>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?
>prodiractortographeditorgaffer?
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.
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.
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.
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.