Fred Camper wrote:

>
>But, per Dan, because auteurism is an "aesthetic" for me, I also have
to rate "Network" as a bad film
>
and

>because my auteurism was arrived at empirically I think it's not a
dogma, and I've found very few exceptions.
>

Fred, arguing with himself: Aren't you contradicting yourself there?

Yes, because I stated my point poorly.

I remain anti-dogma, in that I believe as a matter of principle
that a script directed by an anonymous hack could still result in a
"great" film. I just haven't seen one yet. Maybe if the only way one
could experience "King Lear" was in a statically framed film, I'd count
that one as a great film. The point is, "Network" looked like other
terrific scripts I've seen by bad directors, giving me an experience of
verbal wit that seemed to lose, rather than gain, for being filmed. Just
as I'd rather read a poorly directed play than see it produced, so I
probably would have enjoyed reading the script more than seeing Lumet's
film, which, by the way, especially blunted Cheyevsky's points through
the fact that the way it was shot made it look as if it would appear
quite at home on network TV. To paraphrase the opening of an old R.
Crumb comic, I believe I can make up better images in my head than those
Lumet provided.

And David, don't take the "maybe you're not an auteurist" stuff the
wrong way! If you're not, you can come out of the closet about it here
and still post about what Charles Walters said after Judy Garland did a
great number, or who Bertolucci boffed during which picture he was
making. Maybe it will be healthy for our group to have one knowledgeable
and witty anti-auteurist.

- Fred