Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Message from discussion how come we still talk primarily about directors?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Chris Collins  
View profile  
 More options Jun 12 2004, 9:08 pm
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films, alt.movies, rec.arts.movies.current-films, alt.cult-movies
From: Chris Collins <raisinja...@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:08:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Jun 12 2004 9:08 pm
Subject: Re: how come we still talk primarily about directors?
In article 7b98c3ee.0406101718.7e268...@posting.google.com, choral reef at
symphonic...@hotmail.com stated:

> 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.

The Cahiers crew succeeded in imprinting it on the popular imagination. Or
rather the media that has replaced it.

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.

(Television has the same hypnotic power, but stripped of cinema's positive
attributes [mythological resonance, connectedness]. It has the same powers
of persuasion, but numbs and isolates people beyond the possibility of
trying to do anything about it.)


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google