Film Critics

[RegularKarate]

The Auteur theory is way over-defined.  People just take the definition too far.

There are Auteurs... people who make all the creative decisions.

Auteur just means author... people who write books still have a fucking editor and a fucking publisher, publicist, and use Word Perfect, but they're still the author of the book, they wrote the thing, they are the creative force behind it.

As far as critics go... fuck 'em really.  There aren't any really great critics.

There needs to be a medium between people like Peter Travers who likes just about any piece of shit film he sees and probably takes bribes for his reviews and Pauline Kael who was too engrossed in keeping her image as a snobby over-critical critic to really enjoy film.

[subversiveproductions]

i think the argument about auteur theory has gone somewhat awry here.  the cahiers critics blasted hollywood films in creating auteur theory.  it was never meant as an observational statement of the hollywood filmmaking process.  big-budget hollywood films are most definitely collaborative efforts; they are also, in large part, shit.  auteur theory was a mandate, not an observation.  the cahiers du cinema critics were calling for directors to portray their artistic vision through their films, in the same way that an author portrays his/her artistic vision through his/her books.  entertainment is a collaborative effort, and if your goal is to make movies whose only purpose is to entertain, then you had better be damn good at working with others.  when studio execs are pumping millions into a film, they don't want all of that money resting on the decisions of a single individual.  (by the way, i like a little hollywood entertainment from time to time, don't get me wrong.)  but if you are interested in creating art, the filmic equivalent of literature or painting, then you are interested in an individualistic pursuit, that while relying on the performance of others (actors, gaffers, etc...), is ultimately dependant on the decisions and guidance of one individual: the director.  this is why in New Wave, and indeed many of today's foreign films, you see the director credited as director of mise en scene.  the director decides what ends up in the frame.

[mutinyco]

That's why the Cashiers crowd crowned Alfred Hitchcock king. And he certainly didn't make Hollywood entertainment...

[subversiveproductions]

i can't tell if you are trying to send me up here. (i hope not, because you've proven my point.)

[mutinyco]

Yes, I was sending you up. My comment was intended as ironic. Hitchcock was the ultimate Hollywood director. He's a gold cow.

[ono]

There needs to be a medium between people like Peter Travers who likes just about any piece of shit film he sees and probably takes bribes for his reviews and Pauline Kael who was too engrossed in keeping her image as a snobby over-critical critic to really enjoy film.

His name would be Roger Ebert.

And yes, he is a critic.  If some of you who were criticizing Ebert ever read any number of his reviews you would see that he doesn't just review movies, but he does very often criticize and critique them, like you say a "good critic" should do.

[RegularKarate]

Well, I don't think Ebert fits that exactly, but he's certainly one of the more respectable critics.  He does like films, but I think that more recently, he's lost his ability to tell a good film from a bad... probably done too many reviews... who knows.

[mutinyco]

Even though they focus too much on BO potential sometimes, the critics at Variety are actually pretty sharp. I don't always agree, often don't, but they do know their shit.

[ShanghaiOrange]

Movies are good.



Sometimes.

[subversiveproductions]

Yes, I was sending you up. My comment was intended as ironic. Hitchcock was the ultimate Hollywood director. He's a gold cow.

hitchcock was most definitely not the ultimate hollywood director.  hitchcock was the ultimate auteur.  he held complete creative control over all of his films, and was one of the most meticulous directors ever in terms of planning and execution of shots.  the reason the Cahiers critics crowned hitchcock king is because his films displayed a clear and coherent style throughout.  the fact that his films did well at the box-office only adds punch to their argument: not only are auteur driven films a greater use of the potential of motion pictures, but they can also make money.

[ono]

"tedg" is an interesting "average joe" type film critic who is anything but that.  He's a fellow who posts comments to IMDb -- a lot of comments.  The MIT e-mail address is a bit telling.  He's a really cerebral guy, but has a lot of good insights, though some are stuff no one else has thought of, simply because he thinks too much, and at times can be a bit pretentious.  He is also very discriminating, as he's said he only gives two 4/4 ratings per year.  So 3/4 is pretty much high praise coming from him.  He loves Greenaway, but I don't hold that against him; he also considers Welles and Kurosawa the two other best, and sees PTA's potential (though he didn't like PDL too much), which redeems him.  Check him out.

[mutinyco]

Hitchcock WAS the ultimate Hollywood director. He DID NOT have complete control over all of his films. With David Selznick as producer the auteur proposition is ludicrous. In fact, I think he was little more than a visualist. He had no interest in directing actors -- note the story about him pulling up to a set in his limo, yelling, "Action," then asking the DP if the shot looked good -- when met with an affirmative he drove away. He loved preplanning and storyboarding. But his plots are God awful. Just like De Palma, he bent narrative logic to suit his visual ideas. He's quite simply the most overrated filmmaker in history.

[Gold Trumpet]

How can you discredit Hitchcock as the auteur with the example of his relationship with Selznick? Their relationship of making films together only lasted for a short time and in many people's opinions, came as a period before Hitchcock got into his stride.

~rougerum

[MacGuffin]

Hitchcock WAS the ultimate Hollywood director. He DID NOT have complete control over all of his films. With David Selznick as producer the auteur proposition is ludicrous. In fact, I think he was little more than a visualist. He had no interest in directing actors -- note the story about him pulling up to a set in his limo, yelling, "Action," then asking the DP if the shot looked good -- when met with an affirmative he drove away. He loved preplanning and storyboarding. But his plots are God awful.

I want a source on this "limo" story.

And as for "no interest in directing actors", he felt that if he cast perfectly, then he didn't need to direct them. That's what he hired them for - to do their job and ACT. There are stories about his falling asleep on set, and such (never heard this limo one), but they really are just rumors and tall tales passed on. Interviews with actors who worked with him deny this. They do say he was described as sad on set because all the fun of making the film was done already. But not "no interest" in making the film? Bah!

"Plots are God awful"? Someone hold me back.

[Gold Trumpet]

I'm siding big time with MacGuffin suspicisions brought on these accusations. I wasn't sure and didn't directly attack them because I wasn't sure, but I've heard nothing about these stories of 'limo' directing and such. Maybe an isolated incident at best, but it seems hard to believe considering everything I've read on the guy while directing suggests only the opposite. The only thing I remember of him actually being away from physically directing was when his health got poor and he had to rest often to just keep pace while the film couldn't wait for him. But, even for Hitchcock's age, that was very late into his career when judgement of him as a filmmaker was already established into history.

~rougeurm