Does Tarantino count?
favorite Favorite auteur?
- Thread starter droowl
- Start date
Mike Leigh and Terrence Malick.
Absolutely! In my mind, he makes films in a similar manner to Pedro Almodovar... that is to the extent that they both use pop cultural imagery and use it to present their stories... QT using cinema history and Almodovar using pre/post Franco Spanish History.
If he counts, Hitchcock.
He had an interesting vision.
I also am a fan of Ed Wood-say what you want about the quality of his work-he followed his vision and did whatever he had to put his vision out.
Everyone remembers Plan 9 "one of worst films ever made" yadda yadda.
Funny, no one talks (or knows?) among "average" fans about Glen or Glenda- which I thought was a rather tastefully done film about transgenderism in a time when it was just wasn't talked about-there's some heartfelt stuff in that film.
He had an interesting vision.
I also am a fan of Ed Wood-say what you want about the quality of his work-he followed his vision and did whatever he had to put his vision out.
Everyone remembers Plan 9 "one of worst films ever made" yadda yadda.
Funny, no one talks (or knows?) among "average" fans about Glen or Glenda- which I thought was a rather tastefully done film about transgenderism in a time when it was just wasn't talked about-there's some heartfelt stuff in that film.
You didn't have to say that you like Glen or Glenda, your avatar said it all. The only problem Edward D. Wood Jr. had was that he filmed stuff incredibly fast. At least that's what Tim Burton told me.
You learn to do everything yourself and then realize you only have one set of hands!The more I hear about Cassavetes, the more I like how he worked. More indie filmmakers should know about him...
-- spinner
Busted
(Thought admittedly the first to say that about my avatar-usual comments about people being creeped out by the mask 
)I didn't know that possiblity as far as his filming.
Great, now you've inspired me to go watch Ed Wood again
An interesting discussion that I just caught up with.
So many great directors mentioned it leads me to a question:
What excludes a director from being an “auteur”?
Clearly “auteur” doesn’t mean doing it all. None of the directors
mentioned did the sound, editing and cinematography on their
films. They all directed very talented people doing those jobs.
It seems that filming fast means you are not an “auteur”. What
else keeps a director from being an auteur?
So far all the directors mentioned (even Wood) would, in my
opinion, fit the usual meaning of the “auteur theory”: “personal
artistic expression of the director”, “the distinguishable
personality of the director as a criterion of value”, “choosing
the personal factor in artistic creation as a standard of
referencce” and according to Cahiers du Cinema, “The director
oversees and "writes" the film's audio and visual scenario and
therefore is considered more responsible for its content than the
screenwriter”.
The obvious directors not yet mentioned are, Howard Hawks,
Bernardo Bertolucci, Woody Allen and (surprisingly) Bergman.
So who is excluded and why?
So many great directors mentioned it leads me to a question:
What excludes a director from being an “auteur”?
Clearly “auteur” doesn’t mean doing it all. None of the directors
mentioned did the sound, editing and cinematography on their
films. They all directed very talented people doing those jobs.
It seems that filming fast means you are not an “auteur”. What
else keeps a director from being an auteur?
So far all the directors mentioned (even Wood) would, in my
opinion, fit the usual meaning of the “auteur theory”: “personal
artistic expression of the director”, “the distinguishable
personality of the director as a criterion of value”, “choosing
the personal factor in artistic creation as a standard of
referencce” and according to Cahiers du Cinema, “The director
oversees and "writes" the film's audio and visual scenario and
therefore is considered more responsible for its content than the
screenwriter”.
The obvious directors not yet mentioned are, Howard Hawks,
Bernardo Bertolucci, Woody Allen and (surprisingly) Bergman.
So who is excluded and why?
Uwe Boll!!!
(That's a joke.)
(That's a joke.)
I personally think any director who has produced a body of work can be analyzed and put into the Auteur framework. Since the director is the person on set who all of the decisions go through, their aesthetic filtering of the mise en scene will show up on screen. Over a series of films, these choices reveal their overall aesthetic... so any director, even uwe boll, can be viewed as an auteur.
I would say that a good way of working out if someone's an 'auteur' is to watch a random scene from a film, having never seen that film before, and see if you can say who directed it. If you can, they're (probably) an auteur.
But like all things it's in danger of being devalued if you say that anyone with a body of work can be an auteur...
But like all things it's in danger of being devalued if you say that anyone with a body of work can be an auteur...
Howard Hawks! I love him! The greatest part about him is that he is so diverse. I remember seeing Monkey Business and loving it, just to find out that it had the same director as The Big Sleep. I would definitely consider him an auteur.
James Cameron is excluded. Hes not allowed to be an auteur. Never ever ever.
Why?
Aside from a personal opinion or dislike of a directors work, is
there a criteria for exclusion? Would Cameron not fulfill at least
one definition of “Auteur” - “the distinguishable personality of the
director as a criterion”.
So in addition to not being an auteur if one films his stuff
incredibly fast or is James Cameron, what makes a director not an
auteur?
An interesting theory. I wonder if someone who has seen "Sabrina",
"The Seven Year Itch" and "One, Two, Three" would be able to watch
a random scene from "Witness for the Prosecution" and be able to
say who directed it. Or if someone has seen "Ace in the Hole", "Double
Indemnity" and "A Foreign Affair" would be able to watch a random
scene from "Kiss Me, Stupid" and be able to say who directed it.
Perhaps that director isn't an auteur.
I agree. Which is why I'm curious what keeps a director from being
an auteur. The list of directors here is quite varied; why Jim
Jarmusch and not Ed Wood? Why Cassavetes and not Corman?
What excludes a director from being an “auteur”? Is the director of
the eight films I mentioned not one? Why?
A few that got missed:
Park Chan Wook - enough work with consistent attributes to start calling him an auteur.
Joon-ho Bong - give him a couple more films, an up and coming auteur IMHO.
Wong Kar Wai - tell me he's not.
Park Chan Wook - enough work with consistent attributes to start calling him an auteur.
Joon-ho Bong - give him a couple more films, an up and coming auteur IMHO.
Wong Kar Wai - tell me he's not.
All the criteria for defining auteurs are subjective. In consequence, at any given time, what determines if a director is an auteur or not is the consensus of critics and cinephiles. Of course this consensus is constantly evolving with time. I think it was the French New Wavers who fought to establish Hitchcock as an auteur, which is now pretty much uncontroversial.
I'm not sure how useful the concept of auteur really is. A long time ago I read articles by Truffaut (and Chabrol?) about Hitchcock. I can't remember much about those except that it made me think: Wow, that's pretty far fetched. I think they made a big deal about Hitchcock having been raised as a catholic. They introduced some bizarre concepts such as "transfer of culpability". If you open any book penned by a French critic about a so-called author (say Tarkovski) that's pretty much what you'll find: vague, incomprehensible ideas.
The French seem to define auteurship based on abstract ideas. It seems to me that the Anglo-Saxon concept of auteur would be based more on "style".
"Groundhog day" is one of my favorite movies. Do I consider Harold Ramis an auteur? Looking at the rest of his filmography I cannot find a single movie only half as good as "Groundhog day". Ramis didn't write the screenplay. Maybe it was just a fluke, the combination of a great script, actor and a decent director. Maybe Ramis is not an author. Does that make me enjoy "Groundhog day" less? Hell no! Is it too early for flapjacks?
I don't have a list of directors I consider as auteurs. There are only movies I like and movies I don't like.
I'm not sure how useful the concept of auteur really is. A long time ago I read articles by Truffaut (and Chabrol?) about Hitchcock. I can't remember much about those except that it made me think: Wow, that's pretty far fetched. I think they made a big deal about Hitchcock having been raised as a catholic. They introduced some bizarre concepts such as "transfer of culpability". If you open any book penned by a French critic about a so-called author (say Tarkovski) that's pretty much what you'll find: vague, incomprehensible ideas.
The French seem to define auteurship based on abstract ideas. It seems to me that the Anglo-Saxon concept of auteur would be based more on "style".
"Groundhog day" is one of my favorite movies. Do I consider Harold Ramis an auteur? Looking at the rest of his filmography I cannot find a single movie only half as good as "Groundhog day". Ramis didn't write the screenplay. Maybe it was just a fluke, the combination of a great script, actor and a decent director. Maybe Ramis is not an author. Does that make me enjoy "Groundhog day" less? Hell no! Is it too early for flapjacks?
I don't have a list of directors I consider as auteurs. There are only movies I like and movies I don't like.
Last edited:
I exclude James Cameron because of my personal preference, haha. I'll try to stumble upon an answer as to why anyone is excluded. Warning: the next section has not been edited and may be considered by some as "rambling". Reader discretion is advised.
Lets compare two of his films, which have both held the top grossing films positions: Titanic and Avatar. do either of them have James Cameron's signature on them? Titanic involves two lovers from different backgrounds, caught up in a pretty disastrous disaster. Avatar has the same plot elements. At the time, Titanic had some pretty revolutionary graphics, and the same with Avatar again. Now, obviously we can attribute the plot elements to him because he wrote both of the movies. Now, can the special effects be contributed to his artistic influence, or are they the product of the special effects teams? As a biased critic, I would let the Special Effects team have the credit. Just writing and directing a movie is enough to make you an auteur though. However, does either story reflect his personal beliefs at all? If this were true, at some point in his life he must have had some sort of relation with someone during a disastrous disaster and she/he (Not that theres anything wrong with that) was almost a polar opposite of him. Wait, thats Romeo and Juliet. See, this is why I said doing everything would be best to become an auteur. How does your personal vision shine through all of those other people involved in the process? Maybe he intended to be an auteur, however you do that, but then studios got involved and he started telling him he had to edit this, told him he had to spend all of the gadillion dollar budget, etc. This is why all directors considered auteurs generally worked with a small budget and crew. So no. James Cameron is a jerk and not an auteur.
OK, I'm done. Pick it apart and argue as you please
Well, if we're trying to "define" Auteur, and I'm trying to sort it into my own head-I'll use my own example (please note I'm not even REMOTELY trying to compare myself to those directiors who have been mentioned l) (And I use myself for example only-anyone could put themselves in similar position)
I make short films that involve masks. Particularly (so far) about a masked female. I have a screenplay down the pipe that has dialogue, and an unmasked actor, but also a masked female.
Does me having the elements of masks and/or masked females in similar circumstances make me an Auteur(hypothetically speaking?) Because I have the repeating themes? (of identity, decisions, ect)
Or am only an Auteur if my masked female films (by some freak of billion to one chance) become a hit and films are sold and it gets out to a grand scale-would I be an Auteur then?
Or would I have to have put years of work in and an impressive film resume before I was considered one?
As of right now I would simply consider myself am amateur filmmaker who likes to mike....unusual shorts
Just trying to define what an Auteur would be-and could any of US here consider ourselves one (or can you not consider yourself one, but others have to decide that?)
) (And I use myself for example only-anyone could put themselves in similar position)I make short films that involve masks. Particularly (so far) about a masked female. I have a screenplay down the pipe that has dialogue, and an unmasked actor, but also a masked female.
Does me having the elements of masks and/or masked females in similar circumstances make me an Auteur(hypothetically speaking?) Because I have the repeating themes? (of identity, decisions, ect)
Or am only an Auteur if my masked female films (by some freak of billion to one chance) become a hit and films are sold and it gets out to a grand scale-would I be an Auteur then?
Or would I have to have put years of work in and an impressive film resume before I was considered one?
As of right now I would simply consider myself am amateur filmmaker who likes to mike....unusual shorts
Just trying to define what an Auteur would be-and could any of US here consider ourselves one (or can you not consider yourself one, but others have to decide that?)
I exclude James Cameron because of my personal preference, haha. I'll try to stumble upon an answer as to why anyone is excluded. Warning: the next section has not been edited and may be considered by some as "rambling". Reader discretion is advised.
Lets compare two of his films, which have both held the top grossing films positions: Titanic and Avatar. do either of them have James Cameron's signature on them? Titanic involves two lovers from different backgrounds, caught up in a pretty disastrous disaster. Avatar has the same plot elements. At the time, Titanic had some pretty revolutionary graphics, and the same with Avatar again. Now, obviously we can attribute the plot elements to him because he wrote both of the movies. Now, can the special effects be contributed to his artistic influence, or are they the product of the special effects teams? As a biased critic, I would let the Special Effects team have the credit. Just writing and directing a movie is enough to make you an auteur though. However, does either story reflect his personal beliefs at all? If this were true, at some point in his life he must have had some sort of relation with someone during a disastrous disaster and she/he (Not that theres anything wrong with that) was almost a polar opposite of him. Wait, thats Romeo and Juliet. See, this is why I said doing everything would be best to become an auteur. How does your personal vision shine through all of those other people involved in the process? Maybe he intended to be an auteur, however you do that, but then studios got involved and he started telling him he had to edit this, told him he had to spend all of the gadillion dollar budget, etc. This is why all directors considered auteurs generally worked with a small budget and crew. So no. James Cameron is a jerk and not an auteur.
OK, I'm done. Pick it apart and argue as you please
All of his movies have strong female leads. All of his movies are rather simple and straight-forward; I'd say the most complex plot he's directed was "Abyss", but even that is a fairly simple FX-driven sci-fi. And I think you're seriously underestimating the importance of a director, in relation to FX. Yeah, it's the nerds at ILM and Weta who really deserve the accolades, but you have to ask -- why are Cameron's movies ALWAYS on the cutting edge of FX, and ALWAYS of top-notch quality? I think he has something to do with it.
I agree with you about the effects. I think he also spends time in the editing booth, and I think he DEMANDS top notch effects as part of the vision; he won't settle for underwhelming visuals.
Yay! Cracker Funk is here!
You might be right. I forgot about Abyss, and I actually liked that one a little. Theres nothing wrong with ensuring your movies are visually appealing. I guess James Cameron's movies do have a distinct flavor, thus he has ascended to the rank of auteur, no matter how much I hate Avatar.
As with all art, certain films speak to some people, others don't. I don't think there is a universal auteur formula. It depends on who you are and how you interpret the film. Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpeLSMKNFO4 (I am html challenged and can't get my youtube tags to work)
You can't just break down a director and consider him auteur/not auteur. Thus spake Droowl.
When do I get to see Antihero?
Last edited: