PRACTICAL FILMMAKING vs AUTEUR THEORY

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

Moderator: Moderator

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

Postby Moderator » Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:27 am

Masturbate away. In fact, set up a camera with a shutter release and upload jpegs. I'd say it's the kinda hit you NEED at this point.


Hey, let's not drag poor defenseless photographers into the mud.
- 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 » Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:23 am

Brad Stevens wrote:Response to David Loftus:

"Diversion of the argument into a small byway where one may niggle."

White.

"Parroting as a form of disputatious (but contentless) response."

White.

"Resort, once again, to an exception as a method of not addressing the main line of the argument."

WHITE.




Brad has finally made explicit what was evident to the rest of us long ago: He is only talking to himself, not communicating with, instructing, enlightening, or provoking anyone else.

Fortunately, the rest of us seem to have identified some common logical ground in which to have a rational discussion.
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

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

Postby Josh Olson » Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:40 am

Robo,

“I delineated it before: If I come up with a story, if I develop my script and even storyboard key scenes, if I - I - get the financing, if I control every decision made on what began as my vision and I intend to see to the end as my vision...and I DO so...I AM an auteur - EVEN if at some point in the course of the project I bring YOU on board to work with me.”

Okay. So you’ve laid out a specific scenario - one that certainly happens - and come to a specific conclusion. I don’t argue it. Sure. In that scenario, you get to declare yourself the source of the primary creative vision. But what if you’re a producer who does all that, or a writer who brings a director on board, or an actor who makes it all happen?

I don’t argue that there can’t be movies in which one person is the guiding force, the source of the vision. Of course there can. But to fall into the inane notion that it’s always the director,or that it’s only a good movie IF it’s the director, is just silly.

The Film By credit is a separate issue. It’s an insult to everyone else who works on the film, and it’s a separate issue. Honestly, I don’t have anywhere near as much of a problem if you want to call it “A robochrist movie.” But really, why do you need more than one credit for doing your job? (And actually, in your scenario, you’d already get two credits - you’d be a producer as well. So why get three?)

----
David,

“Brad has finally made explicit what was evident to the rest of us long ago: He is only talking to himself ”

And it would be rude of me to eavesdrop. So I don’t.

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

Postby Brad Stevens » Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:06 am

"Brad has finally made explicit what was evident to the rest of us long ago: He is only talking to himself, not communicating with, instructing, enlightening, or provoking anyone else."

David -

I said it before, and I'll say it again:

WHITE.

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

Postby Moderator » Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:19 am

David -

I said it before, and I'll say it again:

WHITE.


Okay.

Again with the dense. I ain't getting this. And I even had espresso for breakfast.

Yours in the most ig'nant way,

Steve B
- 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 » Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:26 am

At least the length of his posts has blessedly come to reflect the richness of their content.
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

Anthony Ravenscroft
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 4:04 am
Location: Crookston, MN
Contact:

Postby Anthony Ravenscroft » Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:45 am

RC, I kinda -- ayiy, there's my word again -- see where you're going, & therefore (I'm almost relatively certain) agree with ya.

But I think it's heading toward a "rollerskates vs. walnuts" tributary. Therefore, a reductio attempt to describe how I'm interpresting it, possibly quite flawed.

Let's say that I come up with a great idea for a novel. I hire someone to flesh out the idea into a proper outline. I hire someone (maybe the same person) to turn the outline into a detailed synopsis. Liking it thus far, I hire someone (possibly etc.) to expand this into a detailed outline & bible. I think it looks good, so I hire someone (&c.) to write it. And someone to edit it to my "vision."

Then I shop it around to the publishers, & (say) DAW picks it up.

I've got every right in the world to call it MINE -- because I bought it & paid for it, & hold all the rights.

But did I actually create any damned thing whatever? Or did I rather bring it into being where before it just wouldn't have existed?

(Or am I the reincarnation of Byron Preiss...?)

No, really -- it's a question worth examining by anyone. If I pick up a piece of driftwood that looks kinda like a running sandpiper, & stick it onto a base so that many of the people who see it exclaim, "Hey, that's kinda neat, sorta looks like a running sandpiper"... what exactly is it that I've created? Certainly not the wood, & I'd argue not the interpretation I'm sharing.

Yet people Get It, & that probably wouldn't have happened without my role, so there's a "value-added" something happening here.

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

Postby Brad Stevens » Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:46 am

Barber wrote:
David -

I said it before, and I'll say it again:

WHITE.


Okay.

Again with the dense. I ain't getting this. And I even had espresso for breakfast.

Yours in the most ig'nant way,

Steve B


I just wanted to see if David would say "black".

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

Postby Brad Stevens » Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:51 am

Josh -

"And it would be rude of me to eavesdrop. So I don’t."

Hell no! Eavesdropping's just fine. Not rude at all.

Now, when I ask you a straight question - such as 'Which parts of my Abel Ferrara book did you find hagiographic?' - and you repeatedly refuse to answer it...that might, just conceivably, be considered rude.

But eavesdropping? No prob with that at all.

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

Postby Moderator » Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:57 am

Waaaay off topic (forgive the momentary diversion), but an interesting diatribe against remakes from the Washington Post:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/celebrit ... id=entnews




We now return you to the debate, already in progress.
- 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 » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:06 pm

Brad Stevens wrote:
Barber wrote:
David -

I said it before, and I'll say it again:

WHITE.


Okay.

Again with the dense. I ain't getting this. And I even had espresso for breakfast.

Yours in the most ig'nant way,

Steve B


I just wanted to see if David would say "black".



Of course you did. Because that's how you've misread my posts, as sheer, cussed opposition to your positions, rather than, initially, rational responses to them, and then meta-analysis of your debating style when it became clear you weren't going to answer my questions, or even appear to understand them.

You wanted to see whether I would say black because that's the way you argue and, apparently, the way your mind works.

Mine does not.
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
robochrist
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Postby robochrist » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:43 pm

Josh,

Wellllllllll...yes, you WERE arguing this point.

But even here in your generous concession you're making it sound like we're talking about yer shoe store manager - a hired overseer if you will.

I would venture to say - yeah, to say the least - that anyone like Kurosawa or Fellini was a TRIFLE more than THAT. These are artists we're talking about. Not a mere "guiding force", for chrissake, but the independent voice of a singular visionary. THAT is what I refer to as an auteur.

Your ego aside, Josh, if you'd bagged a job with either one of those guys when they were alive...you'd have been a writer HIRED to WORK on a film BY Fellini or Kurosawa.

Your reductionism is as insular in its own way as Brad's is in his.

And I'll add one final point (since we ALL have egos in this joint): I went to UCLA film school. I know this medium very well and I have a passion for it. I have my OWN ideas of how I'd make it work. After I finish my Masters later this year I hope to slowly navigate my way toward filmmaking; right now my more immediate professional doorways are illustration and animation, so I'll be moving in from another industry. I've talked with MANY in the film industry - several directors and writers included - some having been in their craft for about 10 years, some for 20 or 30. ALL of them had their own notions about their craft; NONE of them had final say on what REALLY works and what doesn't. And NONE of them had all the facts right either.

I don't see you as any exception.

When you have constructive insight to offer about the field - that's great; and no one here would deny you due respect. But quit pushing the notion that your own view is the final word. It is as filled with blind biases as badly as Brad's.

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

Postby David Loftus » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:56 pm

So Brad . . . are you coming to the Writers Guild Theatre screening on the 19th?

I hear the auteur Erik Nelson is doing a film on somedamn writer or other.
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 » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:57 pm

"Of course you did. Because that's how you've misread my posts, as sheer, cussed opposition to your positions, rather than, initially, rational responses to them"

If anyone is wondering whether or not David's estimation of this situation is accurate, I suggest they go back to page one of this debate, and read David's very first 'rational' post on this topic.

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

Postby Moderator » Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:39 pm

I went to UCLA film school


I'm sorry. Shoulda gone to a real film school, you know, the one across town???



(Kidding, I have a healthy respect for the UCLA School. Well, that one, anyway.)
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.


Return to “Pop Culture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests