• READ BEFORE POSTING!
    • If posting a video, please post HERE, unless it is a video as part of an advertisement and then post it in this section.
    • If replying to threads please remember this is the Promotion area and the person posting may not be open to feedback.

watch 4 types of filmmakers

Nice video again! :D

You are kind of using the more contemporary usage of auteur, as originally the term was applied to directors such as Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, and Howard Hawks who ONLY directed and were working in a tough system yet were still creating films with artistry. In your categories I'm not sure where any of these directors would fit, possibly still auteur if you remove the fact that they have to actually write the script.

I think some filmmakers overlap in different categories as I'd definitely put Wong Kar-Wai both in the 'poet' and 'actor's director' category because he really focuses on artistic use of cinematography, music, and structure but he also doesn't even write his scripts and builds his stories based on the characters and the actors.

I think it's pretty important to know what kind of filmmaker you are for many reasons. First of all, you can have a better idea of what your potential audience can be, also you can choose to work collaborators that suit your style best. I think in the few films I have made I tend to fall more on the 'poet' side, but I'm hoping to be a mix of a writer-director/'poet' like my favorite director Yasujiro Ozu.

I'd add another category called the 'craftsman.' This is your typical workman director who simply tells stories with the camera without much technical virtuosity or artistic technique. But then we should elevate the more talented 'craftsmen' like the ones I mentioned: Hitchcock, Ford, Hawks, Ozu, Mizoguchi, and someone like Johnnie To to classical auteur status, because their work reveals that they are not mere craftsmen even though they work in the studio system.
 
MiniJamesW said:
You are kind of using the more contemporary usage of auteur, as originally the term was applied to directors such as Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, and Howard Hawks who ONLY directed and were working in a tough system yet were still creating films with artistry. In your categories I'm not sure where any of these directors would fit, possibly still auteur if you remove the fact that they have to actually write the script.
Click to expand...
If you want to get technical about the term, then auteurship hasn't really been properly defined in either the video or your post (not that I really think it matters, I dislike the idea of auteurship). There is a lot of academic wank dedicated to the study of auteur theory, but generally, the most accepted and loose definition is that it is someone who has a noticable and recognisable stylistic imprint in their films - so often the director, but not always (can be a writer, producer, actor, etc - I consider Charlie Kaufman the auteur of a number of the films he's written and not directed). As such it gets broadly applied to writer-directors, as they can exercise a lot of control over the film - but its not exclusively. Using that definition, all of the categories in the video could be considered the auteur.
 
I like the video, D4Darius. Content and editing are good. Do you use a clip on mic? I could hear a bit of friction, thoughout. Nice to see a fellow U of A grad around.
 
cheeseandachallenge said:
If you want to get technical about the term, then auteurship hasn't really been properly defined in either the video or your post (not that I really think it matters, I dislike the idea of auteurship). There is a lot of academic wank dedicated to the study of auteur theory, but generally, the most accepted and loose definition is that it is someone who has a noticable and recognisable stylistic imprint in their films - so often the director, but not always (can be a writer, producer, actor, etc - I consider Charlie Kaufman the auteur of a number of the films he's written and not directed). As such it gets broadly applied to writer-directors, as they can exercise a lot of control over the film - but its not exclusively. Using that definition, all of the categories in the video could be considered the auteur.
Click to expand...

That is actually the version of the theory that I do agree with but it isn't the original one as presented by the Cahiers du cinema writers. It was originally only meant to apply to directors who do NOT write their own work and work within the confines of the studio system, yet still maintain a stylistic imprint through mise-en-scene, directors like John Ford, Howard Hawks, and Alfred Hitchcock were the original auteurs not Charlie Chaplin, Ingmar Bergman, or Akira Kurosawa as they exercised too much control over their films. The auteur theory is more of a way of looking at film rather than a real theory, that's why even in the original French it's called La politique des auteurs (or auteur policy) and not an actual theory. I think that the original theory was very valuable in legitimizing the Hollywood film as art, but it isn't really applicable or accurate today. However, I still think that looking over a director's filmography is like reading all of the works of an author, it is different than looking at the filmography of a set designer, a screenwriter (most of the time), an actor (again, most of the time), a producer, a composer, etc.

I do believe in auteurism with your definition. I believe that actors like Kirk Douglas, Jackie Chan (even when he doesn't direct), and even someone like Will Smith is an auteur. I also believe that a single film can have multiple auteurs such as Taxi Driver with Scorsese, Schrader, De Niro, and Herrmann all serving as key authorial talents. Even producers like David O. Selznick on Gone With The Wind was the auteur. There are a lot of valid criticisms even to this version of the theory, but to be honest I don't find any of the alternatives to the theory particularly convincing as they usually are focused more on the social context of the film than the actual formal elements of the film(s) that can be observed. Then again, some elements of auteurism are just as ridiculous but I don't really accept those, such as reading the biography of the filmmaker to understand his work, it is generally not relevant.
 
MiniJamesW said:
That is actually the version of the theory that I do agree with but it isn't the original one as presented by the Cahiers du cinema writers. It was originally only meant to apply to directors who do NOT write their own work and work within the confines of the studio system, yet still maintain a stylistic imprint through mise-en-scene, directors like John Ford, Howard Hawks, and Alfred Hitchcock were the original auteurs not Charlie Chaplin, Ingmar Bergman, or Akira Kurosawa as they exercised too much control over their films. The auteur theory is more of a way of looking at film rather than a real theory, that's why even in the original French it's called La politique des auteurs (or auteur policy) and not an actual theory. I think that the original theory was very valuable in legitimizing the Hollywood film as art, but it isn't really applicable or accurate today. However, I still think that looking over a director's filmography is like reading all of the works of an author, it is different than looking at the filmography of a set designer, a screenwriter (most of the time), an actor (again, most of the time), a producer, a composer, etc.

I do believe in auteurism with your definition. I believe that actors like Kirk Douglas, Jackie Chan (even when he doesn't direct), and even someone like Will Smith is an auteur. I also believe that a single film can have multiple auteurs such as Taxi Driver with Scorsese, Schrader, De Niro, and Herrmann all serving as key authorial talents. Even producers like David O. Selznick on Gone With The Wind was the auteur. There are a lot of valid criticisms even to this version of the theory, but to be honest I don't find any of the alternatives to the theory particularly convincing as they usually are focused more on the social context of the film than the actual formal elements of the film(s) that can be observed. Then again, some elements of auteurism are just as ridiculous but I don't really accept those, such as reading the biography of the filmmaker to understand his work, it is generally not relevant.
Click to expand...
Ah right, I misunderstood your point. Yeah, I must admit, I'm not overly familiar with the earliest definitions.

I don't really have an issue with auteurship so much as I do the celebration and emphasis the film society puts on the auteur. It's great to have auteurs, and I mostly enjoy the works of those who'd be considered auteurs - but, as the classic and most obvious argument goes, the celebration of the auteur does seem reductive to the collaborative nature of film.
 
cheeseandachallenge said:
Ah right, I misunderstood your point. Yeah, I must admit, I'm not overly familiar with the earliest definitions.

I don't really have an issue with auteurship so much as I do the celebration and emphasis the film society puts on the auteur. It's great to have auteurs, and I mostly enjoy the works of those who'd be considered auteurs - but, as the classic and most obvious argument goes, the celebration of the auteur does seem reductive to the collaborative nature of film.
Click to expand...

Ah I see, but yes your definition is more relevant today and it happens to be the definition I agree with.

That is true and is a valid argument, but in general I tend to view it as collaborating to serve one vision (usually the vision of the director). I also don't like how some brilliant talent is ignored in favor of directors, even film reviewers tend to praise the director for something that cinematographers or writers did.
 
MiniJamesW said:
Ah I see, but yes your definition is more relevant today and it happens to be the definition I agree with.

That is true and is a valid argument, but in general I tend to view it as collaborating to serve one vision (usually the vision of the director). I also don't like how some brilliant talent is ignored in favor of directors, even film reviewers tend to praise the director for something that cinematographers or writers did.
Click to expand...
Yeah its a bit of a shame. I share your POV.
I understand why reviewers and fans and the like refer to it as the directors work (and in some way it is, it is at least in part due to their influence), because it simply makes things easier and less confusing. Gives the film a central image, a face, something recognisable. It's the same reason companies spend money investing in a person to be the "face" of their business - people want to be able to attribute that thing to a person, it makes them uncomfortable if they cannot (hence why "faceless company" is used to describe "evil" corporations), even though that's hugely simplified and reductive.

Bit off topic, apologies.
 
cheeseandachallenge said:
Yeah its a bit of a shame. I share your POV.
I understand why reviewers and fans and the like refer to it as the directors work (and in some way it is, it is at least in part due to their influence), because it simply makes things easier and less confusing. Gives the film a central image, a face, something recognisable. It's the same reason companies spend money investing in a person to be the "face" of their business - people want to be able to attribute that thing to a person, it makes them uncomfortable if they cannot (hence why "faceless company" is used to describe "evil" corporations), even though that's hugely simplified and reductive.

Bit off topic, apologies.
Click to expand...

That's true, it's much easier to discuss the film if you reduce it's existence as a product of one central figure. It's also a selling point for the film in some ways. For film lovers it is the director, but for casual film goers it's the stars that have that 'face.' It's unfortunate, but I think the extreme auteurist point of views are more of a reflection of this common problem rather than the cause of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top