Author Topic: Why do you think Anderson should be considered an Auteur?  (Read 1497 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

FreddieQuell

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: +1
Why do you think Anderson should be considered an Auteur?
« on: September 24, 2014, 12:04:51 PM »
+1
I'm doing a project on Anderson for my film studies course, specifically looking at Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood and The Master. I have to do a presentation on why I think he's an auteur and have to include some primary research so would really appreciate it if anyone could offer their opinions/insights/observations on why they think Paul is (or isn't) an Auteur and how he's grown as a director over the course of his career, thanks!

Axolotl

  • Shoutbox Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 233
  • Respect: +314
Re: Why do you think Anderson should be considered an Auteur?
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2014, 12:43:17 PM »
+2

Reelist

  • Shoutbox Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2599
  • Respect: +967
Re: Why do you think Anderson should be considered an Auteur?
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2014, 12:58:51 PM »
0
I don't have anything to offer you directly, because stuff like that is written all over this subforum, so I'm not gonna waste my time. Start HERE
You can go to places in the world with pudding. That. Is. Funny.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10871
  • Respect: +1279
Re: Why do you think Anderson should be considered an Auteur?
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2014, 01:06:49 PM »
+1
Jeez. Nice way to welcome the new guy.

The debates over auteur theory are usually about who actually has creative control, so you might want to look at PTA's history of fighting for and achieving that control after Hard Eight. That should be pretty good evidence that he is an auteur.

As a preemptive response to a possible rebuttal, you could argue that the group of crew and actors that he brings with him from one film to the next are part of his auteurship.

As for the actual creative content, you can look at his techniques and motifs from Hard Eight through Punch-Drunk Love. From whip pans to surrogate fathers, etc. You can talk about his intentional shift with There Will Be Blood and The Master, and how his stated intention manifested so directly and starkly in the final product. And also how familiar themes still remained. Definitely read Pubrick's post that Reelist just linked to, especially the part about PTA always coming back to the same story.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Mel

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Edgy TV show-watching Russian bodybuilder cartoon.
  • Respect: +168
Re: Why do you think Anderson should be considered an Auteur?
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2014, 02:07:54 PM »
0
I don't like auteur theory myself, still you can look at how many aspects PTA has impact on.

Easy thing to pick: he is director/writer - when script isn't original, he is still adapting it. Few other things to consider: getting life-time performance from actors, one of the last directors who is shooting on film. This video explains some of his insight into cinematography:



Speaking about, he moved from camera movement into framing - one of the signs of his evolution as director. It is also nice to know what people working with him have to say (telling probably more than essays or interviews with PTA):



I had more in mind, but I'm too drunk today to re-remember it.
Simple mind - simple pleasures...

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10871
  • Respect: +1279
Re: Why do you think Anderson should be considered an Auteur?
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2014, 02:44:00 PM »
0
Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at. The way he creates a collaborative group behind his vision, especially with actors, can (maybe) itself be viewed as autership. Not the traditional definition, but I buy it.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

AntiDumbFrogQuestion

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 452
  • Respect: +45
Re: Why do you think Anderson should be considered an Auteur?
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2014, 07:18:25 PM »
0
I think that in his first three outings that he was more of an auteur, although you hear a lot about collaboration and improvisation even then. But he regarded himself as "stubborn" once in awhile, and I think that after the control that he put into the making of Magnolia, he became kind of a reverse-auteur.
It's like he decides what goes into the final film, and therein we have authorship, but he also regards his collaborators in a way where he says he "surrounds himself with talent", so it's hard to say. 
An interesting idea would be to explore whether or not he's regarded as an auteur, or simply a unique filmmaker. I say go for it, maybe get a "D", but hey, if it interests you, it's worth it.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy