Film Critics

Started by ono, July 17, 2003, 02:17:28 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mutinyco

And as somebody who knows his share of critics, I can assure you how out of touch they are with the process.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

filmcritic

Well, I'm a film critic so I think I can relate to this thread. Here's my scoop on others...

Roger Ebert - great, insightful
Leonard Maltin - good, sometimes insanely wrong
Joyce Kulhawik - worst critic I know
Gene Siskel - wonderful, R.I.P
Joel Siegel - fair, perhaps too forgiving
Gene Shalit - fair, perhaps too hard
Richard Roeper - really good, sometimes funny also
Elvis Mitchell - smart, legit
Stephen Holden - terrific
A.O. Scott - decent
"You're too kind."
-Richard Roeper

"You're too cruel."
-Roger Ebert

Gold Trumpet

Well, nyc, I'm not arguing with you on the auteur theory - I don't believe in it. Neither does the man I was defending, Kauffmann, either. Its not a staple of what it is to be a critic.

~rougerum

mutinyco

I think it is, whether conscious or not. Most film critics ultimately return to the director to assign guilt or success.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Ghostboy

I'm a film critic, sort of, and I do it because writing about film helps me gain a better understanding of it, which in turn hopefully will help me be a better writer and director.

Although it didn't really work for Rod Lurie.

Gold Trumpet

Quote from: mutinycoI think it is, whether conscious or not. Most film critics ultimately return to the director to assign guilt or success.

Then to the ones not directly believing in the autuer theory, what does it matter? Considering you are also a critic, what does it say about you? Me, personally, I disagree with the auteur theory and that every film critic unfairly uses it without thinking it. But me disagreeing with the autuer theory just means I don't see it as the best theory. It doesn't apply that I am of better means to analyzing than another at all. Its just a stupid theory.

~rougerum

SoNowThen

long live the auteur theory


taking projects out of total control of the director is to kill film


that said, I think the only way auteurism works is to have 50% of films made by committee. It's both sides of the coin of filmmaking. Half deeply personal films, half assembled commercial projects. Both can be good, or shit.

and I could care less which directors/critics disagree with the theory. it's been the central thing i've identified with in making film, even before i had heard of it. it was a feeling. the director is god, and the film is the star. everybody else involved must serve these two. that's how i wanna make films. you don't agree, then do it your own way.

mutinyco: "If you know anything about the process of filmmaking it's a FACT that the auteur theory doesn't hold water."

??? hehehehe.... you should be a film school teacher. they're good at making final statements about what filmmaking is supposed to be. that's about the only thing...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

chainsmoking insomniac

mutinyco, PTA is an auteur.  I guess all his movies suck ass, huh?
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote: 'The world's a fine place, and worth fighting for.'  I agree with the second part."
    --Morgan Freeman, Se7en

"Have you ever fucking seen that...? Ever seen a mistake in nature?  Have you ever seen an animal make a mistake?"
 --Paul Schneider, All the Real Girls

mutinyco

First of all, you aren't reading what I've written. I'm not a critic. Don't consider myself one. I'll occasionally write a review, but that's only if the site's normal critic hasn't seen something. I prefer doing press interviews and writing essays. My statement about the auteur theory isn't some dogmatic statement, but a realistic observation. Filmmaking is a collaborative process. Yes, in many cases the director has more control than in others. But he acts more as a conductor than a composer. Note the difference. As for PT Anderson, I consider him a writer/director. That's all he can take credit for because that's all he actually does. He supervises other aspects to make sure they're in line with what he wants, but ask ANY professional filmmaker and they'll start gushing about their collaborators -- in PT's case Robert Elswit and Jon Brion, among others. Those are the people who actually realize the film. Where would Scorsese be without Thelma Schoonmaker or Spielberg without Janusz Kaminski and John Williams or the Coens without Roger Deakins...David Lynch without Mary Sweeney...and on and on...
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

OF COURSE. Auteur theory (well, my incarnation anyway) should never discredit any of the collaborators. Never. You will not find another person who has more respect for DP's, focus pullers, gaffers, set decorators, etc, than me. I love these people. But final decisions must be made with the director's full approval. And he should be responsible in picking all the above people. The bad thing about the whole auteur business is that everyone has a different definition of what it is. It's like all great film terms (mise en scene, anybody?) -- they are barely graspable, or completely malleable by everyone who wants to throw them out there. I don't care if you don't wanna use/work with the theory, but you can't discredit it, because it's one of the central film ideas of modern filmmaking.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

SoNowThen

Oh -- I also almost forgot to add one of the more important ideas that I associate with auteurism, and that's the point of tracing through a director's entire body of work to see a common and constantly evolving thread of themes/ideas that obviously have a very personal meaning with that certain director. Certainly Kubrick and Scorsese are two great examples of men who worked in many genres, yet you can always tell it's one of their films within 5 minutes of watching, and not just because of visual style, but with narrative choices and the ideas at play. This is consistent through all their works, in some cases working better, in some just average. But that spine, that through line of their careers... I didn't wanna not mention that. It's essential. ANd I think we can all agree it's definitely there for all the greats.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

mutinyco

Of course it's there. Of course different filmmakers have their own style. But what about somebody like Jerry Bruckheimer? Isn't he an auteur? He doesn't direct, but he damn well controls his productions and oversees every single aspect. He, too, has a distinct style.

The auteur theory came into existence 50 or so years after the birth of cinema. Yes, early on there were what we might call auteurs...DW Griffith, Chaplin... But most productions were of studio assembly. It's an ideal, but actually represents a fraction of a fraction of overall filmmaking and it can't be considered to any great degree accurate of the whole. It's the whole that counts, not any one individual piece. That was Eisenstein's basic conceit in relating filmmaking/montage with Communism. A film is made by many people. For instance, is somebody like David Fincher an auteur? He often retains final cut and his films have a distinct look and feel, both visually and thematically. But he doesn't write his films. Doesn't shoot them. Edit them. Score them. So can he genuinely take credit for it as say...A Film by David Fincher? The Writers Guild has been battling Hollywood for years to eliminate that type of credit toward the director -- unless the director has also written it. They contend that the film began as the work of the writer.

As for mise en scene, it does have an actual definition. It was originally a stage term applying to "what's in the scene" or what's onstage as a part of the scene. In film terms that corresponds to what's in the camera's frame. It's not a generalized term for atmosphere, but a specific reference to the details of what we are seeing at any given moment. That's why I think Welles and Kubrick were so great -- they were genuinely directing SCENES, not SHOTS.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

Ah yes, but you give your definition of mise en scene, or what it was when it was coined. But these great film terms are evolving with the times. Before, a simple mise en scene might have been the movement of the actors in frame, along with the angle of the shot, and that's it (silent film). Now it can incorporate CGI, etc. But some people only take the mise en scene to be what was there at the time of shooting. Others believe it should be completely separated from editing, while still others believe that the terms must be married together to get a picture of film proper.


As to Bruckheimer -- it could very well be argued that he is, in fact, an auteur. Because his personal vision definitely does pour out of every film he makes, and his stamp is on every facet of the production.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

mutinyco

I don't think the meaning has changed. A meaning is a meaning. If something differs from it coin a new term. I don't believe mise en scene defines whether it has to be in the camera at the time of filming. It's what's in your frame. Lots of movies have used special effects to add elements from the very beginning. Even Citizen Kane. What about old time matte paintings? I don't feel there's a valid argument to alter the meaning. It doesn't matter whether something is CGI or not.

Let me pose it this way, do cartoons have mise en scene? There's nothing live action. But the filmmakers/animators pay great attention to the details of every shot. It's what's in the frame -- what you're seeing at any given moment.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

Argue much?

All I'm saying is that you say it's "what you see in the frame". I'm not disputing this. But I've read many film books and countless essays that talk of mise en scene, and each give a slightly different definition. Generally, it's the same idea, but each focuses on something a little different. That's why I kinda love all these pretentious film terms, because they are just ambiguous enough to be thrown around for many different things. That's all.

Same can be said for auteur theory. That's the point I was trying to make before.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.