Message from discussion
how come we still talk primarily about directors?
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: odno...@hotmail.com (Emperor Gondo)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films,alt.movies,rec.arts.movies.current-films,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: how come we still talk primarily about directors?
Date: 11 Jun 2004 17:10:44 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <1b7c4400.0406111610.5ee546c2@posting.google.com>
References: <7b98c3ee.0406101718.7e268f95@posting.google.com> <110620040003092894%nospam@noway.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.131.2.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1086999046 17839 127.0.0.1 (12 Jun 2004 00:10:46 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:10:46 +0000 (UTC)
Heynony <nos...@noway.com> wrote in message news:<110620040003092894%nospam@noway.com>...
> choral reef [yeah, right] wrote:
>
> > 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 my status as a card-carrying auteurist has long since been revoked.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.
|
