Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Auteurs

Expand Messages
  • jess_l_amortell
    Has anyone compiled a list of reasonably serious Yahoo groups devoted to individual directors (e.g. Rohmer-L and MacGuffin )?
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 13, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Has anyone compiled a list of reasonably serious Yahoo groups devoted to individual directors (e.g. "Rohmer-L" and "MacGuffin")?
    • Jaime N. Christley
      ... devoted to individual directors (e.g. Rohmer-L and MacGuffin )? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lancelotdulac/ Jaime p.s. Hey everybody. Hawks THE
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 14, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell" <monterone@e...>
        wrote:
        > Has anyone compiled a list of reasonably serious Yahoo groups
        devoted to individual directors (e.g. "Rohmer-L" and "MacGuffin")?

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lancelotdulac/

        Jaime

        p.s. Hey everybody. Hawks' THE CROWD ROARS is playing on Turner
        Classic Movies (sorry Fred) on Monday afternoon. Check the TCM
        website for the time. I'd really like to see it, the clip from the
        Scorsese documentary was pretty enticing. Would make a nice side-by-
        side with RED LINE 7000, no?
      • Dan Sallitt
        ... Absolutely. I m really fond of THE CROWD ROARS - truth be told, I think it s my favorite Hawks film of 1932, despite the formidable competition of
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 14, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          > Would make a nice side-by-
          > side with RED LINE 7000, no?

          Absolutely. I'm really fond of THE CROWD ROARS - truth be told, I think
          it's my favorite Hawks film of 1932, despite the formidable competition
          of SCARFACE and TIGER SHARK. - Dan
        • BklynMagus
          Responses to several points: ... as a taking off point for the creation of visual imagery -- with little or no explicit interest in its social, ideological,
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Responses to several points:

            Michael writes:

            > I would think that a director could see a scenario largely
            as a taking off point for the creation of visual imagery --
            with little or no explicit interest in its "social, ideological,
            moral and semantic content".

            I would suppose that a director could respond either way
            or both ways simultaneously. Certainly Mankiewicz both
            responded to the content of scripts such as SUDDENLY,
            LAST SUMMER, SLEUTH and JULIUS CAESAR while at the
            same time using them as a jumping off point for his own
            personal concerns.

            Also, who is Jean-Claude Biette and what is his importance?

            Dan writes:

            > No one seems to agree on what the auteur gland is.

            Or where it is located and how sensitive it is. LOL

            But to add some thoughts, if I adopt the term "personal
            cinema," here are some "types" of personal films/filmmakers
            I come up with:

            1. The filmmaker who does it all himself (or with a very small
            crew). He shoots, he scores, he edits, he lights, he paints on
            celluloid, he etches on it -- total control. For me, the question
            now is what Ruy suggested: when you look at the film and
            study it -- what meaning does it possess? What attitude does
            it evince (if any at all. Maybe such a filmmaker just makes
            movies to evoke sensations and not meanings).

            2. The director as CEO (thanks David). Involved in all aspects
            of his film, but the actual work is carried out by others under his
            guidance. David mentioned Mankiewicz and he is an example.
            His only direction to Bette Davis was that Margo Channing was
            a woman who treated her mink coat like a poncho. With the
            script and Mank's direction, Davis created Margo who fit in
            perfectly with his vision for the entire movie. For me, the director
            as CEO has as much control as the director in category #1.

            3. The director as hired hand. Here the director is assigned a
            script he had no hand in shaping and may often be working for a
            producer with a strong personality -- Arthur Freed; Hall Wallis;
            Jerry Wald, Steven Spielberg, Ross Hunter, Irving Thalberg, etc.

            How much control does a director in this case have?

            Side comment: I would argue that when we demarcate areas of
            directoral control, we are also demarcating areas where we will
            look for personal inflections, meanings, etc.

            As to personal inflections (thanks Blake): won't there be a difference
            in inflection in a film where the material is a long-cherished project
            of the filmmaker versus one where it is material he is doing to pay
            the rent? And in cases where the director had total control, how is
            personal inflection registered? He is not in opposition to the
            material -- he wanted to do it. Without the seam between
            directoral attitude and content, how does a viewer determine
            personal inflection in these cases?

            Fred writes:

            > "Is the film interesting, and in what way?"

            In addition, I want to note Fred's comment that he is better at the
            vision part. When I read that I asked myself what part I was better
            at, and (quel suprise) the answer was the cultural/thematic part. I
            am not good with/fond of abstracts -- maybe this why I gravitate to
            pragmatism and the thinking of James/Dewey/Shusteman/Locke/
            Dubois etc.

            For me a film is interesting when the sociological is balanced with
            the aesthetic. If a film offers only one experience or the other, I
            am usually bored. To reference Mank yet again: I was first drawn
            to his work because of his strong women and the way he addressed
            themes of greed and ambition in American society (among others),
            but stayed because of his rigorous and intricate aesthetic.

            In my mind, Fred's: "Is the film interesting" becomes "Is the film
            robust." Can I question it thematically and get answers? Can I
            enquire about its use of space and be responded to? Is it a work of
            art that I can return to you as I age (and possibly mature), and when
            I approach it with new issues/ideas discover that the film is still
            responsive?

            > Arguing about terminology isn't usually as interesting as talking
            about films.

            Agreed. Coming up with a definition of what film is doesn't excite me.
            I would much rather have a filmic experience, and then try and
            discover what led to that experience, and who was the agent behind it.

            Brian
          • Richard Modiano
            ... 2. The director as CEO (thanks David). Involved in all aspects of his film, but the actual work is carried out by others under his guidance. David
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus <magcomm@i...> wrote:

              "2. The director as CEO (thanks David). Involved in all aspects
              of his film, but the actual work is carried out by others under his
              guidance. David mentioned Mankiewicz and he is an example...For me,
              the director as CEO has as much control as the director in category
              #1."

              This is also the workshop model of the early Renaissance that lasted
              into the early 19th century in Europe. The master received a
              commission from a patron and made a charcoal sketch and then an oil
              sketch. An apprentice made a cartoon from the master's sketches and
              attached it to the canvas. The master started the under painting and
              another apprentice worked it up with corrections from the master
              along the way, and finally the master put on the finishing touches
              and signed it. This was how people like Rubens and Rembrandt worked
              (except when they were painting their self-portraits.)

              "3. The director as hired hand. Here the director is assigned a
              script he had no hand in shaping and may often be working for a
              producer with a strong personality --...How much control does a
              director in this case have?...As to personal inflections (thanks
              Blake): won't there be a difference in inflection in a film where
              the material is a long-cherished project of the filmmaker versus one
              where it is material he is doing to pay the rent?"

              Enter Edgar G. Ulmer. Though he seems never to have had a strong
              producer (maybe Leon Frumkiss was a strong producer), most of his
              movies were made from assignments and yet in many pictures he was
              able to turn them into his own, most vividly in the health
              documentaries he was comissioned to make by the National Tuberculosis
              and Health Association. On some other pictures he had a say in the
              scenarios. Ulmer was a visual stylist par excellence. He had to be,
              since he was rarely allowed to pick his subject or shape his
              screenplays (and often had to deliver a picture in a matter of days.)

              Richard
            • jpcoursodon
              ... Biette and his intriguing but somewhat confusing taxonomy have been discussed at length on a _film_by, especially by Bill Krohn, a great fan and
              Message 6 of 6 , Dec 2, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus <magcomm@i...> wrote:

                > Also, who is Jean-Claude Biette and what is his importance?
                >

                Biette and his intriguing but somewhat confusing taxonomy have been
                discussed at length on a _film_by, especially by Bill Krohn, a great
                fan and connoisseur of Biette's work. It should be easy to look up in
                the archives.

                JPC
                .
                >

                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.