PRACTICAL FILMMAKING vs AUTEUR THEORY

For the discussion of Movies, Television, Comics, and other existential distractions.

Moderator: Moderator

Josh Olson
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:59 pm

Postby Josh Olson » Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:36 am

Sorry. Brad STEVENS, not Brad Davis.

For some reason, Brad's posts make me think of Turkish prisons.

User avatar
David Loftus
Posts: 3182
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Postby David Loftus » Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:45 am

Brad Stevens wrote:David - As usual, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


Then you need to read everyone's posts more carefully, including your own. I get the distinct impression you only read far enough, and carefully enough, to get to the next argument you want to post, rather than actually trying to comprehend what anyone is saying.


Brad Stevens wrote:How, exactly, am I misrepresenting Josh's position? He's the one who said that artists were always more important than critics.


And Lawrence was an artist. You specifically stated that Josh might have said the things he did were more important than the things Lawrence did, including fiction, which I know if you had stopped to think about, was clearly overstating Josh's position. Was it malicious? I'm going to assume it was not. Just hurried and sloppy. But that's part of the point I've been trying to make all along: your posts race from one detail to the next, rarely acknowledging the general argument, or attempting to connect the details to it.


Brad Stevens wrote:I have consistently asked you to explain what you meant when you suggested that I made the ridiculous claim that "exceptions prove facts", and you have consistently refused. Pot calling kettle black much?


I have explained. I will do it again. You never said as much, in so many words (obsession with detail again), but that is the general approach of your posts: Someone offers a general attack on the auteur theory, you respond with an exception or two . . . which certainly proves there are auteurs out there (and almost no one else has disputed that), but is no defense of the auteur theory in toto, as we understand it or as you sometimes characterize it.
War is, at first, the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off. - Karl Kraus

User avatar
Jan
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Köln

Postby Jan » Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:48 am

Josh wrote:I can't believe, in the year of our Lord 2007, you're actually claiming that criticism (a) isn't a creative act, (b) can't be challenging, and (c) can't, at its best, consitute an artform as valid as any other you can name.


I hate to tell you that Josh is not saying any of these things.

We should distinguish between creativity and artistic creation. Artists can not fully realize themselves in criticism, and merely creative people can not make La dolce vita or Brief Encounter.

I think it's correct to say that writing is a creative act, if there are original ideas in it or original combinations of old ideas. When a review crosses over into art, however, it presumably misses its primary purpose - to inform, to evaluate, to provide guidance in a direct manner. You move past that, you're writing an essay. The essay is an artform.

Jan

User avatar
Jan
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Köln

Postby Jan » Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:49 am

Ooops. I was quoting Jim, not Josh, obviously.

Brad Stevens
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:01 am

Postby Brad Stevens » Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:33 am

"I have explained. I will do it again. You never said as much, in so many words (obsession with detail again), but that is the general approach of your posts: Someone offers a general attack on the auteur theory, you respond with an exception or two . . . "

Yes, and I do believe that exceptions are, at the very least, worth noting. So I could legitimately be accused of claiming that exceptions DISprove rules. But you have repeatedly accused me of believing that "exceptions prove rules". The first time you mentioned this, I suggested that what you actually meant to say was "exceptions disprove rules", but you insisted that no, you had said exactly what you meant to say.

But I guess you will now say that the fact I have bothered to draw this to your attention simply provides more evidence of my obsession with detail. How ridiculous of me to expect you to have a reasonable command of the English language.

For some completely inexplicable reason, the vision of Josh standing naked outside my window shouting "BILLY, I'M HERE FOR YOU!" has lodged itself in my mind and refuses to budge, so I'm going to have to lie down for a while. Perhaps when I wake up, Josh will have finally got around to telling me exactly why he found my Abel Ferrara book hagiographic.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:43 am

For the hagiographically-challenged among us (from my trusted Merriam-Webster):

Hagiographic:

Function: noun

1 : biography of saints or venerated persons
2 : idealizing or idolizing biography



"Webderland, where learning is a way of life."
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
David Loftus
Posts: 3182
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Postby David Loftus » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:08 pm

Brad Stevens wrote:"I have explained. I will do it again. You never said as much, in so many words (obsession with detail again), but that is the general approach of your posts: Someone offers a general attack on the auteur theory, you respond with an exception or two . . . "

Yes, and I do believe that exceptions are, at the very least, worth noting. So I could legitimately be accused of claiming that exceptions DISprove rules. But you have repeatedly accused me of believing that "exceptions prove rules". The first time you mentioned this, I suggested that what you actually meant to say was "exceptions disprove rules", but you insisted that no, you had said exactly what you meant to say.



Precisely. No one else has proposed a rule. You have held up the auteur theory as valid, and I assume all your noise on the Pavilion and on this Board has ultimately been in service of defending that "rule."

But you don't defend or justify or explicate the rule; you mostly offer exceptional objections to other folks' critique of the rule.

Hence, my analysis that you have been trying to prove a rule by exceptions, and my (and nearly everyone else's) skepticism.

It doesn't help that you indulge in rhetorical witticisms such as "How ridiculous of me to expect you to have a reasonable command of the English language," instead of confining yourself to the substance of the discussion, which is where I contend your posts regularly miss the boat.

So much for sterling criticism.
War is, at first, the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off. - Karl Kraus

Brad Stevens
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:01 am

Postby Brad Stevens » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:28 pm

Barber wrote:For the hagiographically-challenged among us (from my trusted Merriam-Webster):

Hagiographic:

Function: noun

1 : biography of saints or venerated persons
2 : idealizing or idolizing biography



"Webderland, where learning is a way of life."


I know what the word 'hagiographic' means. I just can't understand why Josh used it to describe my book. As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever called Abel Ferrara a saint, and my book isn't idealizing, idolizing or, in the strict sense, a biography! Anyway, that's how I see it - Josh, I guess, had a very different experience while reading it, and I'm genuinely curious as to why he thought that the word hagiographic should be applied to it.

I'll be tactful and not ask why he also thought it fair to describe the book as a 'wank fest' - and please don't give me the dictionary definition of that one!

Brad Stevens
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:01 am

Postby Brad Stevens » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:36 pm

"But you don't defend or justify or explicate the rule"

I explained the idea of auteurism in great detail in my earliest posts.

"you mostly offer exceptional objections to other folks' critique of the rule."

Um...yeah. If those critiques are blatantly nonsensical, I say so, and demonstrate why they are nonsensical. Is this not allowed?

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:40 pm

Brad Stevens wrote:I know what the word 'hagiographic' means. I just can't understand why Josh used it to describe my book.


I kind of assumed you DID know what it meant. I didn't and had to look it up. Call me an illiterate, but I posted the definition for others of my own ilk.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Ezra Lb. » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:59 pm

Thank you Mr Barber!

(It's always a good idea to suck up to the moderator.)

Of course when I write my own biography it will be a...you guessed it...

an autohagiography!

According to the tally-o-meter 2005 people have dipped into this here thread but there have been only 174 posts, most of them by the principals engaged in verbal combat.

Who the hell are the rest of you people?

Jump in! Contribute!

Being full of shit and having nothing to say never stopped me!
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
Duane
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Postby Duane » Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:04 pm

>>Jump in! Contribute!<<

I'll stick with the guy who won the Oscar.

>>Being full of shit and having nothing to say never stopped me!<<

Nothing further needs to be said!

Brad Stevens
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:01 am

Postby Brad Stevens » Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:46 pm

Duane wrote:>>Jump in! Contribute!<<

I'll stick with the guy who won the Oscar.


Is this a reference to Peter Arndt?

User avatar
Duane
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Postby Duane » Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:00 pm

Ding ding!

Either that, or I'm thinking of the time I won a free Dodger Dog.

User avatar
David Loftus
Posts: 3182
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Postby David Loftus » Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:12 pm

Brad Stevens wrote:"But you don't defend or justify or explicate the rule"

I explained the idea of auteurism in great detail in my earliest posts.


Explaining is not defending. You can say all you like about what you believe, but if you ignore or disparage other folks' responses to the theory without even addressing them, then you aren't really doing the job.



Brad Stevens wrote:""you mostly offer exceptional objections to other folks' critique of the rule."

Um...yeah. If those critiques are blatantly nonsensical, I say so, and demonstrate why they are nonsensical. Is this not allowed?


If they are. But if they aren't, and that seems evident to various onlookers who either agree or chime in with their own versions of the same arguments, yet you continue to say "nonsensical," then the argument boomerangs on you, rather.

(Sorry about the British tone my post has taken; I was reading Frayn's "Noises Off" over my lunch break.)
War is, at first, the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off. - Karl Kraus


Return to “Pop Culture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests