Poll
Question: Is the director the sole author of a motion picture?
is the director the sole author of a motion picture? please give intelligent backing for your comments.
well of course he isnt the "sole" auteur. (though sometimes he might be depending on the movie... "el mariachi").
I answered no, because I don't believe a director is the sole author of a motion picture anymore. Once Kubrick died that concept was pretty much dead [Godard is still alive, but it isn't like we've heard anything from him in a long while]. Scorsese is probably the closest nowadays, but on Gangs Of New York it is pretty obvious that the producers played a fairly heavy handed role in the authorship of the film.
That does not mean I wanted to vote no. I wanted to vote yes. And God knows I would have were the question, should a director be the sole author of their films. For the most part [bar some cases; Spielberg is a prime example of a brilliant maestro/conductor of numerous other talents, for example] I believe that yes, a director should be the sole author of a film. I know I try to be.
Quote from: The Silver BulletGodard is still alive, but it isn't like we've heard anything from him in a long while.
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0181912
Unfortunately, I had to vote 'no' as well. Although he or she did create the film, there were other people involved in the production. If no one else, the writer. He writes the story, a director comes in and puts it together. I think the writer deserves quite a bit of credit as well. Plus all the producers, also. I don't like them either, but they did front the money for these films. Let's face it, without producers, most films wouldn't exist. Could you imagine a world without 'Taxi Driver' or 'Fight Club'? I'm afraid to think about it.
dude, i'm not writing ur essay.
just steal sumshit from cahiers du cinema articles, u'll pass..
Quote from: cecil b. dementedQuote from: The Silver BulletGodard is still alive, but it isn't like we've heard anything from him in a long while.
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0181912
Ouch, look at the title of this review.
"Before, Godard used to be inventive without ever being pretentious. Now, he's pretentious without ever being inventive"
Quote from: bonanzataz
"Before, Godard used to be inventive without ever being pretentious. Now, he's pretentious without ever being inventive"
the guy who said that is a moron.
seriously though, i saw the film and i disagree. it certainly isnt as good as the new wave stuff, but its still good. i love the b&w/ color idea. ill have to steal that. wheres that thread about stealing from other movies?
The film got a 6.3 out of 10 from 280 votes.
280 votes! My point exactly. While Godard may or may not still have the goods [haven't seen the film yet; can't judge, myself] he definitely isn't as prolific as he once was.
I really need some Godard recommendations..the two films i've seen of his did not impress me at all...(In Praise of Love, My Life To Live). I was unable to keep my eyes open with In Praise of Love and i thought My Life To Live was a bit rediculous and pointless. perhaps my first impressions are serving me wrong (its been known to happen quite a lot with me). But what titles do i desperately need to check out? Band of Outsiders?..Alphaville?...Contempt?....whats the best?
All of them.
Quote from: Bill MaplewoodBand of Outsiders?..Alphaville?...Contempt?....whats the best?
i think my life to live is his best, followed closely by breathless. any of his films from the 60s are amazing. give breathless a try maybe, but if you didnt like my life to live.... i dunno. maybe godard just isnt your cup of tea.
I have Breathless out from netflix on Cecil's recommendation. I have yet to watch it. I'm guessing tomorrow. My first Godard, I love getting my cherry popped.
I was interested to note that in the Reservoir Dogs Collector's Edition DVD section in which Tarantino comments on each of the names he listed at the beginning of the Reservoir Dogs screenplay as inspiration, he mentions that he has lost interest ["grown out of" being his exact words] in Godard. I found it strangely accurate too; for most film students and lovers of film, Godard is flavour of the month for a while and then you realise that Melville was better [or whatever]...
Quote from: The Silver Bulletand then you realise that Melville was better [or whatever]...
havent even heard of Melville..what are some titles of his?
Quote from: Bill MaplewoodQuote from: The Silver Bulletand then you realise that Melville was better [or whatever]...
havent even heard of Melville..what are some titles of his?
nevermind...just looked him up...glad to hear it because i just purchased Bob, Le Flambeur...havent had the chance to watch it yet though.
Quote from: The Silver BulletGodard is flavour of the month for a while and then you realise that Melville was better [or whatever]...
Or Truffaut
Quote from: Bill Maplewood
havent even heard of Melville..what are some titles of his?
Melville played Parvulesco in A Bout De Souffle. His directorial nods were Les Enfant Terribles and Le Deuxieme Souffle.
One title in particular is "Le Samourai" the film that John Woo remade into "The Killer"
I wish they would finally release "Le Samourai" on DVD.
Auteur Theory is not a scientific-style theory. Its intention is not primarily to show, prove, or investigate whether or not a director is a particular film's "author."
Rather, it takes as given that certain films or groups of films may be seen as primarily authored by an individual; that individual is typically a director. Subsequently, the critical usage of the theory attempts to glean understanding and insights about that work or body of work or its implications, taking a single artist's (director's, screenwriter's, set decorator's, what have you) influence as a guiding perspective.
Voting "yes" or "no" in a poll like this really doesn't do much to express your thoughts on auteur theory.