28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Irish]

He can't have a unique consistent voice because he isn't appropriately knowledgeable about film-making?

I'm not sure plunking a camera down in one spot and never moving it qualifies as 'voice.'

All of his movies are consistent in that they share z-grade production values. Some of them are consistent in casting, tone and writing (Clerks, Chasing Amy, etc).

So I think some of the scripts have a specific voice, but the movies, by and large, do not.

Going back to the original idea, if you showed someone, without prior knowledge, out takes of Clerks and Red State, would they be able to tell it was made by the same guy? Is there enough of a connection there to make this kind of distinction?

The only way he's not an auteur is if you have a quality-threshold for the term.

If there isn't, then anyone who posts regularly to their own YouTube channel is an 'auteur.'

Not to mention McG and Rattner and that kind of 'filmmaker.'

[Spinal]

I'll make no effort to defend Kevin Smith's artisty. I'll leave that to someone else.

It'll most likely be Kevin Smith. Just fyi.

[Sven]

Not to mention McG and Rattner and that kind of 'filmmaker.'

You don't have to put quotes around filmmaker. They are filmmakers.

[Mr. McGibblets]

If there isn't, then anyone who posts regularly to their own YouTube channel is an 'auteur.'

Not to mention McG and Rattner and that kind of 'filmmaker.'

McG has no consistent voice or anything running through his movies. I've only seen two Ratner films, but X-Men is such a blatant work-for-hire with nothing personal in it, that I doubt he does either.

There are other equally reviled filmmakers, Michael Bay for example, who clearly do have voices and styles and themes that they keep coming back to.

[Irish]

You don't have to put quotes around filmmaker. They are filmmakers.

I can pound rusty, bent nails into two-by-fours all day long. This doesn't make me a carpenter.

[Raiders]

I can pound rusty, bent nails into two-by-fours all day long. This doesn't make me a carpenter.

This is hardly analogous. These guys do more than take pictures with a video camera. They work in conjunction with a huge crew, go over scenes with actors, work through ideas on set, review the dailies, work through a production schedule with the crew for shooting... you're being absurd.

[Irish]

This is hardly analogous. These guys do more than take pictures with a video camera. They work in conjunction with a huge crew, go over scenes with actors, work through ideas on set, review the dailies, work through a production schedule with the crew for shooting... you're being absurd.

And you're being too literal. It was a humorous analogy to make a point.

Being a project manager (which is exactly what you described) is not quite operating at the same level as a 'filmmaker' or 'auteur,' terms which seem to me to suggest status and meaning beyond job description.

[Izzy Black]

Well they're directors. That's their job title. Whether or not they're "filmmakers" I guess depends on whether you ascribe an honorific status to the term 'film' as opposed to 'movie.' Which I take it that Irish does. I'm rather indifferent, personally.

[Raiders]

And you're being too literal. It was a humorous analogy to make a point.

You gotta admit, with your posting history some level of doubt is only natural.

Being a project manager (which is exactly what you described) is not quite operating at the same level as a 'filmmaker' or 'auteur,' terms which seem to me to suggest status and meaning beyond job description.

It's what a director does. Nowhere in what I said is there no room for either writing or selecting material that furthers the personal or distinctive traits of the films of the respective director or is there no room to create through working with the DP or editor visual styles and motifs or thematic structures to incorporate.

Some directors can do that, some (like Ratner or McG) do not. They merely manage the film they are currently on to the best they can.

[Izzy Black]

I think Irish wants to say 'filmmaker' has an honorific status like the term 'film' (if you think it does).

But semantic quibbling aside, This Means War is awful.

[Pop Trash]

This Means War is awful.

Why'd you even bother?

[Izzy Black]

Why'd you even bother?

Because I'm a cinematic masochist. That and the leads were hot.

[Irish]

You gotta admit, with your posting history some level of doubt is only natural.

Whatever do you mean? I've been charming, funny, and lovable from day one!

*walks away whistling*

[Russ]

Hey, I can vouch for Irish if necessary.

*runs away screaming*

[Spun Lepton]

After being told for years to watch Primer, I did. Can somebody explain to me why this film is so highly regarded? Fucking voiceover.

[B-side]

More Israfel is the best thing to happen to the boards in a while.

Agreed!

[Qrazy]

But outside cinema studies classes, I don't think most would be able to pinpont and differentiate, on any meaningful level, the individual voice of She's Gotta Have It and Miracle at St Ana or Alien and Kingdom of Heaven.

I do not understand the desire that crops up in many discussions of auteur theory for a director to have the same style over the course of their entire career.

For instance the early, middle and late periods of Picasso are all extremely different. I do not think he would have been a better painter or a greater artist had he churned out cubist masterpieces his entire life.

I like artists who change their style with time.

[Izzy Black]

I do not understand the desire that crops up in many discussions of auteur theory for a director to have the same style over the course of their entire career.

For instance the early, middle and late periods of Picasso are all extremely different. I do not think he would have been a better painter or a greater artist had he churned out cubist masterpieces his entire life.

I like artists who change their style with time.

That's why I've tried to argue that Soderbergh is an auteur

[Qrazy]

Perhaps the genius is in the details as I'm aware this is not a traditional comedy, but I'm hoping that Playtime and The Holidays of Mr. Hulot are a bit more engaging as I blind bought a special collector's DVD. I don't even mind Mr. Hulot as a sort of silent observer, but on the whole it didn't leave much of an impression. The soundtrack was very hummable though.

I like it more than you but personally I do find Mon Oncle the most dated of his films. Traffic and Playtime are the best with Holiday not far behind. So definitely don't write him off.

[Qrazy]

That's why I've tried to argue that Soderbergh is an auteur

I don't disagree he's an auteur I just don't think any of his films are great. :P

[Izzy Black]

Agreed!

=D

[Izzy Black]

I don't disagree he's an auteur I just don't think any of his films are great. :P

I know >_<

[Dead & Messed Up]

After being told for years to watch Primer, I did. Can somebody explain to me why this film is so highly regarded? Fucking voiceover.

I'll try to assemble some thoughts later in the evening, should time permit. I keep trying to type out why it's awesome and thoughts keep interrupting each other.

Suffice to say, I love it. I think it's one of the best sci-fi films ever made.

[transmogrifier]

It's all just an argument about semantics, isn't it? Some of you use the label "auteur" as an honorific, indicating a unique artisitc vision, while others just take it as meaning, literally, "author" and are trying to establish, in a collaborative artform, who best to label as the author. In the latter case, the best answer, IMO, is always the director.

Every director can be analyzed across their filmography for common factors, no matter how much you hate them.

[Qrazy]

It's all just an argument about semantics, isn't it? Some of you use the label "auteur" as an honorific, indicating a unique artisitc vision, while others just take it as meaning, literally, "author" and are trying to establish, in a collaborative artform, who best to label as the author. In the latter case, the best answer, IMO, is always the director.

Every director can be analyzed across their filmography for common factors, no matter how much you hate them.

Ish. Plenty of film directors are really just director for hire who are only directing the actors and that's it. This is much more clear if you look at directors who have done a lot of television work, with the majority of television directors it's almost impossible to find clear cut common features.