To Bill, definitions would be great. Thanks in advance. To all, perhaps

we should gradually construct a FAQ for our group? ("FAQ" = a very

common 'Net term for "Frequently Asked Questions")



For example:



What is the "auteur theory"? (Here I'd want a citation to the Truffaut

article, citation to the most easily available English translation,

reference to any predecessor theories, to Sarris, to why most don't

consider it a "theory," etc.)



The definitions of the terms Jaime mentioned (with citations?)



Perhaps something in answer to "what about the producer, scriptwriter,

etc" -- and here Peter and I could perhaps agree on something to the

effect that even auteurists consider that for some films there's a

dominant creative force other than the director, and we could also cite

particularly illuminating posts in the archive, and if know of one of

those, let us know -- I remember a couple of excellent ones from Tag and

one from Zach.



I haven't discussed this with Peter at all, but if he agrees that its' a

good idea, and no one else objects credibly, this might be something we

could construct gradually, with others' help, starting with Bill's

definition, and put it in the "Files" section with a link from the main

page.



I'd like to see somewhere in there a refutation of the common and

mistaken belief that for an auteurist the director has to have full

control, write the script, et cetera -- an explanation of the notion

that a tension between the director and his material is sometimes

thought to send the director to new heights (and as we all know,

sometimes to new depths too).



I envision something Peter and I construct with extensive quotations

from material provided by members and quotations from minority views

among our members too (within reason).



- Fred

> I'd like to see somewhere in there a refutation of the common and

> mistaken belief that for an auteurist the director has to have full

> control, write the script, et cetera -- an explanation of the

notion

> that a tension between the director and his material is sometimes

> thought to send the director to new heights (and as we all know,

> sometimes to new depths too).



I'm having a hell of a time duking it out with some youngsters on the

Rotten Tomatoes discussion board



http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=309894



My arguments may be a little more messy, a little less educated (which

is why I wanted to get definitions of those terms - an FAQ is a swell

idea), than those of the more esteemed a_film_byers, the longtime

auteurists...but I'd like to think I'm fighting the good fight, waving

the flag, etc.



Boy, this guy I'm arguing with keeps bringing up the most damned

uninteresting literary/stage movies to back up his anti-auteurist

arguments - LORD OF THE RINGS, Branagh's HAMLET, THE SILENCE OF THE

LAMBS - and sure enough, I keep having to explain, over and over

again, the Tired Old Arguments:



> mistaken belief that for an auteurist the director has to have full

> control, write the script, et cetera



And this line had me throwing up my hands:



"Those things you mention [the director's aesthetic decisions] are

means to an end, that end being presenting as best as possible the

content of the scribt [sic]."



I must be convincing some people, but it sure gets tiresome after a

while.



-Jaime

Do the people you talk with watch many silent movies?

It is hard to look at the visual glories of Griffith, Eisenstein, Sternberg,

Stroheim, Keaton, etc, and just assume they are illustrating some script.

The same with experimental films: Jordan Belson, James Whitney ("Lapis" is

one of the all time masterpieces), Ron Rice, Jack Smith, Brakhage...

When I was a teenager, silent movies were my deep love, and my intro to

cinema. Campus screenings of "Way Down East" (with Lilian Gish introducing the

film

no less!) and "Potemkin" opened my eyes to cinema. I still love silent films,

and watch them every chance they are shown.

Watching such films - and really, really WATCHING them with your eyes and

mind - will reveal the visual glories of cinema.

Mike Grost

Waxing nostalgic for his teen age years, after reading the admirable pieces

from the young cinephiles on the list.

Jaime M Christley wrote:



> I'm having a hell of a time duking it out with some youngsters on

the

> Rotten Tomatoes discussion board

>

> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=309894



Pretty interesting discussion, though I got exhausted well before the

end. One thing that struck me was the mention of Paddy Chayevsky, who

also turns up in an interview I was reading today with a more recent

champion of the screenwriter-as-author:



www.theonionavclub.com/4006/feature1.html



I'm not very familiar with Chayevksky's work, but I saw THE GODDESS a

couple of months ago and it did indeed seem like "a film by" its

screenwriter -- quite good on its own terms but basically treating

the film medium as a delivery system for the script. It may be that

I'm unfair to Chayevsky or to the film's director, John Cromwell, as

I don't know much about either of them -- I believe that G. Cabrera

Infante, who had pretty hip tastes in the '50s, admired Chayevsky's

work.



> And this line had me throwing up my hands:

>

> "Those things you mention [the director's aesthetic decisions] are

> means to an end, that end being presenting as best as possible the

> content of the scribt [sic]."



Wasn't Biette quoted as saying something superficially similar --

that the director "extracts the content of the script" or some such?

These terms are very ambiguous: I suspect that "realising" a script

in cinematic terms is diametrically opposed to trying to preserve the

integrity of that script as a (verbal) artwork in its own right,

which I presume is what Chayevsky wanted.



A question I have left over from when people were discussing comic

books -- could there be a comic book equivalent to auteurism,

maintaining that the guy who draws the pictures automatically takes

precedence over the guy who writes the story? If not, why not?



JTW



PS: I remember seeing an interview with Nancy Meyers where she said,

roughly: "Nobody cares what the actors are saying in a Scorsese

movie, but in a James L. Brooks movie, it's all about the words." She

thought this was paying Brooks a compliment. Actually Brooks' mise-en-

scčne isn't bad, from what I remember.

--- jaketwilson <upworld1@...> wrote:



>

> I'm not very familiar with Chayevksky's work, but I

> saw THE GODDESS a

> couple of months ago and it did indeed seem like "a

> film by" its

> screenwriter -- quite good on its own terms but

> basically treating

> the film medium as a delivery system for the script.

> It may be that

> I'm unfair to Chayevsky or to the film's director,

> John Cromwell, as

> I don't know much about either of them -- I believe

> that G. Cabrera

> Infante, who had pretty hip tastes in the '50s,

> admired Chayevsky's

> work.

>

Chayevsky is the auteur of all the films written by

him with the exception of "Altered States." Cromwell

and Lumet are both very fine directors (and Cromwell

in his later years acted in "Three Women" and "A

Wedding" to great effect) but -- I don't know how else

to put it  -- SOMETIMES WORDS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER

IMAGES.



We've all just got to learn to live with that and deal

with it as critics accordingly.



> I suspect that

> "realising" a script

> in cinematic terms is diametrically opposed to

> trying to preserve the

> integrity of that script as a (verbal) artwork in

> its own right,

> which I presume is what Chayevsky wanted.

>



Not at all. The verbal is not diametrically opposed to

the visual.





As for G. Cabrera Infante ( a great novelist AND a

greatfilm critic) he is without question the "autuer"

of "Vanishing Point" -- a film directed by Richard C.

Sarafian but written by "G. Cain" ie. G. Cabrera

Infante.



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

> -- I don't know how else

> to put it  -- SOMETIMES WORDS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER

> IMAGES.



Do you ever know any other way to put things?



> We've all just got to learn to live with that and deal

> with it as critics accordingly.



Obviously a strong writer will overpower a weak director.  But that

doesn't make the writer an auteur.  Unless he directs.



-Jaime

--- "Jaime N. Christley" <j_christley@...>

wrote:



>

> Obviously a strong writer will overpower a weak

> director.  But that

> doesn't make the writer an auteur.  Unless he

> directs.

>

You act as if there's something "unnatural" about

this.

It doesn't "diminish" the work in question at all.

It's a simple fact of film history and aesthetics.



Get used to it.



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein <cellar47@y...> wrote:

>

> --- "Jaime N. Christley" <j_christley@y...>

> wrote:

>

> >

> > Obviously a strong writer will overpower a weak

> > director.  But that

> > doesn't make the writer an auteur.  Unless he

> > directs.

> >

> You act as if there's something "unnatural" about

> this.

> It doesn't "diminish" the work in question at all.

> It's a simple fact of film history and aesthetics.



What?  I don't follow.



> Get used to it.



How can I get used to something that registers as just plain

incorrect, and barely makes sense?



-Jaime

--- "Jaime N. Christley" <j_christley@...>

wrote:



>

> How can I get used to something that registers as

> just plain

> incorrect, and barely makes sense?

>

What's incorrext or nonsensical about it? Chayevsky

didn't just write "Network" -- he produced it. He

HIRED Sidney Lumet to direct his script and had

ccomplete control over all other aspects of the

production. You're free to approve or disapprove of

the result as you choose but the fact that it's Paddy

Cheyevsky's film is incontrovertible.



You seem to think that anyone who directs a film has

magical powers capable of absorbing script, actors,

sets, costumes and every other aspect of filmmaking

into himselef -- like The Blob!



The faster you relieve yourself of this inane fantasy

the better.







__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein <cellar47@y...> wrote:

>

> --- "Jaime N. Christley" <j_christley@y...>

> wrote:

>

> >

> > How can I get used to something that registers as

> > just plain

> > incorrect, and barely makes sense?

> >

> What's incorrext or nonsensical about it? Chayevsky

> didn't just write "Network" -- he produced it. He

> HIRED Sidney Lumet to direct his script and had

> ccomplete control over all other aspects of the

> production. You're free to approve or disapprove of

> the result as you choose but the fact that it's Paddy

> Cheyevsky's film is incontrovertible.



I mean, could you support your argument with another film?  I mean,

the circumstances you describe would seem to support auteurism because

the strong and powerful writer overpowers a fairly bland director.



But then, consider Schulberg or Ray's relationship with WIND ACROSS

THE EVERGLADES.



> You seem to think that anyone who directs a film has

> magical powers capable of absorbing script, actors,

> sets, costumes and every other aspect of filmmaking

> into himselef -- like The Blob!



No, not just any director, only the great ones.  But the writer

doesn't do it at all.



-Jaime

--- "Jaime N. Christley" <j_christley@...>

wrote:



>

> I mean, could you support your argument with another

> film?  I mean,

> the circumstances you describe would seem to support

> auteurism because

> the strong and powerful writer overpowers a fairly

> bland director.

>



Look at "The Best Man" -- written and produced by Gore

Vidal and directed by Franklin Schaffner. Not bland at

all.



> But then, consider Schulberg or Ray's relationship

> with WIND ACROSS

> THE EVERGLADES.

>



Right. Much like Russell's relationship to Chayevsky

on "Altered States."



The auteur? Gypsy Rose Lee!



> > You seem to think that anyone who directs a film

> has

> > magical powers capable of absorbing script,

> actors,

> > sets, costumes and every other aspect of

> filmmaking

> > into himselef -- like The Blob!

>

> No, not just any director, only the great ones.  But

> the writer

> doesn't do it at all.

>



But the writer doesn't do NOTHING either -- as many in

here appear to believe. The writer isn't some looney

to be kept in the attic and never spoken of  -- like

Rochester's wife in "Jane Eyre."

>

>





__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

> Look at "The Best Man" -- written and produced by Gore

> Vidal and directed by Franklin Schaffner. Not bland at

> all.



I'll check it out when I get a chance.



> Right. Much like Russell's relationship to Chayevsky

> on "Altered States."

>

> The auteur? Gypsy Rose Lee!



I disagree and feel you're misusing the term, but you know I think that.



> But the writer doesn't do NOTHING either -- as many in

> here appear to believe. The writer isn't some looney

> to be kept in the attic and never spoken of  -- like

> Rochester's wife in "Jane Eyre."



Straw man.  Never said that.



-Jaime

> PS: I remember seeing an interview with Nancy Meyers where she said,

> roughly: "Nobody cares what the actors are saying in a Scorsese

> movie, but in a James L. Brooks movie, it's all about the words."



See, I take issue with Meyers' assumption that there is an innate

dominance at work within any particular movie.  And she's far from the

only one who talks this way.  I think this is a problem which still

haunts the auteurist movement.



There are a number of people in any movie who can be working at their

full creative energy.  Which one of them matters the most, or how many

of them matter, is an aesthetic judgment.



That's why I don't like to say, "Chayevsky is really the auteur of THE

HOSPITAL," or whatever.  This is just another way of saying, "I think

the film is worthy, and I think Chayevsky is the reason" - an aesthetic

judgment, not an act of identification and classification.  For me,

Hiller is the most important person on the set of THE HOSPITAL, because

I needed something from him that I didn't get.  But I don't want to

convert that statement into "Hiller is the auteur."  I don't feel

comfortable using the word "auteur" to mean "the most powerful or most

crucial contributor," because I think that's an aesthetic judgment, and

should be exposed as such instead of hidden behind an illusory system of

objective classification.



I consider someone an auteurist if he or she generally considers the

direction the most important factor in a film's value.  If there are too

many films like THE HOSPITAL in your canon, maybe you need to think

about turning in your membership card.  But that's no big deal, really -

it's not as if all the auteurists in the world have that much in common,

as we have learned on this list.



- Dan

> There are a number of people in any movie who can be working

  at their

> full creative energy.  Which one of them matters the most, o

r how many

> of them matter, is an aesthetic judgment.

>

> That's why I don't like to say, "Chayevsky is really the aut

eur of THE

> HOSPITAL," or whatever.  This is just another way of saying,

  "I think

> the film is worthy, and I think Chayevsky is the reason" -

  an aesthetic

> judgment, not an act of identification and classification.



Chayevsky is the major creative force behind The Hospital,

but well that´s true to every Arthur Hiller film doesn't

matter who write it. So I guess this says more about Hiller

than Chayevsky. I guess even Chayevsky knows that, he always

carefullt choose his directors, the only two times (if I'm

not mistaken) that he work with directors with some

reputation were Network and Altered States. And Sidney Lumet

was a filmmaker who never made secret of how important he

think writing were; which lefts the Russell film that

Chayevsky himself disowned.



I do think that sometimes a film can survive lousy direction,

which doesn´t mean someone else is really the film auteur. I

have a auteurist friend who wrote once that The Hospital was

the only good Arthur Hiller film, thanks to George C. Scott

(not that Scott was the auteur, only that he beieve his

performance makes for the mediocre direction). I think the

reason why early Marx Brothers is better than the late ones

has little to do with Norman Z. Mcleod being better or worse

director than Sam Wood or David Miller (of course that Duck

Soup is by far their best film has something to do with Leo

McCarey).



Filipe



  For me,

> Hiller is the most important person on the set of THE HOSPIT

AL, because

> I needed something from him that I didn't get.  But I don't

want to

> convert that statement into "Hiller is the auteur."  I don't

  feel

> comfortable using the word "auteur" to mean "the most powerf

ul or most

> crucial contributor," because I think that's an aesthetic ju

dgment, and

> should be exposed as such instead of hidden behind an illuso

ry system of

> objective classification.

>

> I consider someone an auteurist if he or she generally consi

ders the

> direction the most important factor in a film's value.  If t

here are too

> many films like THE HOSPITAL in your canon, maybe you need t

o think

> about turning in your membership card.  But that's no big de

al, really -

> it's not as if all the auteurists in the world have that muc

h in common,

> as we have learned on this list.

>

> - Dan

>

>

>

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>

>

>





---

Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.

AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!

http://antipopup.uol.com.br

--- filipefurtado <filipefurtado@...> wrote:

  I

> have a auteurist friend who wrote once that The

> Hospital was

> the only good Arthur Hiller film, thanks to George

> C. Scott

> (not that Scott was the auteur, only that he beieve

> his

> performance makes for the mediocre direction).



Nope. "The In-Laws" -- and Andrew Bergman film

directed by Arthur Hiller -- is superiror.



I

> think the

> reason why early Marx Brothers is better than the

> late ones

> has little to do with Norman Z. Mcleod being better

> or worse

> director than Sam Wood or David Miller (of course

> that Duck

> Soup is by far their best film has something to do

> with Leo

> McCarey).

>



Or not.



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

I think I agree with both David and Jaime here, if that's possible. I

saw "Network" on its initial release. I enjoyed it mildly for the bitter

and telling script (and if that's the origin of the "I'm mad as hell and

I'm not gonna take it anymore" line, then Cheyevsky gave us a line that

has made it into the culture, but, ironically, without his intended

irony) but hated the direction, which seemed visually mindless. So

because Lumet is so bland, Cheyevsky's script was the element that stood

out.



But, per Dan, because auteurism is an "aesthetic" for me, I also have to

rate "Network" as a bad film from an aesthetic point of view, even if

worth recommending for elements within it. The director was asleep at

the switch, and had nothing to offer except making the script into a

picture-book, and with none of the skills of the great book illustrators

of the past such as Gustave Dore. For me a film becomes a work of art

only when its images are organized into visual expression. I don't like

dogmas, and exceptions are possible, but because my auteurism was

arrived at empirically I think it's not a dogma, and I've found very few

exceptions.



Now for someone who values script or acting as much as anything a

director might contribute, an aesthetic such as mine (or, perhaps, Dan's

and Jaime's) makes no sense. But I'd question whether that person is

really a 99 and 44/100ths per cent pure (quoting an old soap advertising

line) auteurist. The whole point of auteurism, as far as I'm concerned,

is to say that by and large and most of the time if a film is great it's

great because the director has created an emotionally powerful,

intellectually engaging, visually expressive and even beautiful work of

art. And the kinds of things a director can add can really not be added

by other crew members, as already discussed here many times.



- Fred

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

--- Fred Camper <f@...> wrote:



>

> 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,



I don't consider Chuck Walters to be an auteur, Fred.



or who Bertolucci boffed during which

> picture he was

> making.



Or Allen Midgette either.



Maybe it will be healthy for our group to

> have one knowledgeable

> and witty anti-auteurist.

>

You rang?



Seriously, I consider "auteurs" to be a very select

group of film diretors: Fellini (curiously despised by

most auturists), Hitchcock, Bergman, Bresson, Dreyer,

Welles, Cocteau, Sturges, Wilder, Resnais, Sacha

Guitry, Rivette, Chris Marker, Jacques Demy, Godard,

Visconti, Franju, Whale, Agnes Varda, Pasolini,

Mankiewicz, Warhol (but not Morrissey), and Patrice

Chereau.



Non-"autuers" -- like Walters, Cukor, Wyler, Stevens

-- are perfectly capable of making great films.



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

David Ehrenstein wrote:



>Seriously, I consider "auteurs" to be a very select

>group of film diretors: Fellini (curiously despised by

>most auturists)

>

As we've discussed before, "auteur" can mean "great director who is the

author of his films," but it can also mean "director  who is clearly the

author of his films which have a distinctive style and set of meanings

et cetara, whether or not I like them." For me, Fellini is obviously an

auteur in the latter sense, even if not in the former.



The rest of your list is fine. I agree with most of them, especially



> Warhol (but not Morrissey)

>

So maybe you're just a far more "discriminating" auteurist than the rest

of us, a man of very refined tastes, notwithstanding any interests he

might have in Charles Walters's towels.



- Fred

>>Chayevsky

>>didn't just write "Network" -- he produced it. He

>>HIRED Sidney Lumet to direct his script and had

>>ccomplete control over all other aspects of the

>>production. You're free to approve or disapprove of

>>the result as you choose but the fact that it's Paddy

>>Cheyevsky's film is incontrovertible.



Obviously, having power over a film is very important.  But this idea

way pre-dates auteurism.  America has always lavished attention on

powerful directors and producers, and other countries probably have as

well.  What's more or less original about auteurism is the idea that a

submerged craftsperson, working on a tight budget, with no script

control or final-cut rights, and usually no aspiration to being an

artist, might turn out important art. - Dan

--- Dan Sallitt <sallitt@...> wrote:

  What's more or less original about auteurism

> is the idea that a

> submerged craftsperson, working on a tight budget,

> with no script

> control or final-cut rights, and usually no

> aspiration to being an

> artist, might turn out important art.



And then they might NOT.



I'm perfectlyaware of the fac that this is Absolute

Sacrilege, but Howard hawks is wildly overrated.



He's a good director, and when I first because

interested in auteurism a pivotal figure. But no more.



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Dan:

> There are a number of people in any movie who can be working at

> their full creative energy. Which one of them matters the most, or

> how many of them matter, is an aesthetic judgment.



Excellent observation as usual, Dan.  We should really slide away

from the "X is *really* the auteur" statements (and even, "X and Y

are both the real auteurs"), in my opinion.  It's obvious that

Hollywood filmmakers are situated amidst multiple craftspersons,

sometimes stronger (aesthetically, financially, etc.) than

themselves.  The fact that Laird Cregar is fucking awesome does not

change the fact that the bottom line, when it comes to how I feel

and think about THE LODGER ('44), is John Brahm, 'true auteur' or

not.



Is it a matter of identification, perhaps?  Do we find ourselves

putting more imaginative investment in a 'creative' role or

a 'spectatorial' role?  I think people of the former stripe find

themselves gravitating to that thing called auteurism more often

than not.  So to what extent do our identifications inform our

aesthetics?



Another question:



What would explain the fact that we've devoted more intelligent

script to writers and actors (and their sex lives) than most online

forums of comparable size?  Is it, perhaps, partly caused by the

fact that many auteurists, after getting their polemics out early

on, have found themselves more sensitized to the myriad non-

directorial forms of encoding that go on in the making of a film?



--Zach

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein <cellar47@y...>

wrote:

>



> I'm perfectlyaware of the fac that this is Absolute

> Sacrilege, but Howard hawks is wildly overrated.

>

> He's a good director, and when I first because

> interested in auteurism a pivotal figure. But no more.

>

> ____So overrated that you dropped the cap (hawks)?... Actually

there's at least one other member of this group who is willing to

join in the absolute sacrilege -- myself. There are three, maybe four

Hawks films I love and place as high as anything. The rest I find

either boring, second-rate or even in some cases awful. This type of

reaction is, of course, thoroughly un-auteurist (especially

concerning the auteur by excellence). But then i never considered

myself a real auteurist, no matter that I have often been pigeon-

holed as one.

    JPC

>

>Why is this the case?  To me Hawks seems very consistant, no?

>

>He's a good director, and when I first because

>interested in auteurism a pivotal figure. But no more.

>



--

Tosh Berman

TamTam Books

http://www.tamtambooks.com

>  What's more or less original about auteurism

>>is the idea that a

>>submerged craftsperson, working on a tight budget,

>>with no script

>>control or final-cut rights, and usually no

>>aspiration to being an

>>artist, might turn out important art.

>

> And then they might NOT.



Sure, but...?  No one would disagree with this.



> I'm perfectlyaware of the fac that this is Absolute

> Sacrilege, but Howard hawks is wildly overrated.



Sacrilege is fine - I certainly don't like every director in the

auteurist canon.  But I'm trying to make a general point about what

auteurism can and can't lay claim to.  No one needed auteurism to

appreciate Fellini - no one had any trouble dealing with Griffith, von

Stroheim, and Eisenstein before auteurism.  Auteurism did not contribute

the idea that some directors are powerful personalities, create their

own universes, etc. - Dan

I think Dan is right on target about what auteurism contributed. An

addendum, though:



Dan Sallitt wrote:



> no one had any trouble dealing with Griffith, von

>Stroheim, and Eisenstein before auteurism.

>

I think maybe auteurism was needed to appreciate some *late* Griffiths.

Something like "Isn't Life Wonderful," which isn't particularly

consciously artful, is my favorite Griffith up until that time. And then

there's the generally reviled "The Struggle," which I think is great. A

key early moment for me was going to the MoMA's Griffith retrospective,

I believe in the summer of 1964, and reading about his "decline" in the

catalogue and elsewhere, and then seeing the counter-evidence on the

screen: "Orphans of the Storm," "The Sorrows of Satan," "Abraham

Lincoln" -- all of them, really.



- Fred

>I'd like to see somewhere in there a refutation of the common and

>mistaken belief that for an auteurist the director has to have full

>control, write the script, et cetera -- an explanation of the notion

>that a tension between the director and his material is sometimes

>thought to send the director to new heights (and as we all know,

>sometimes to new depths too).



I always found Dan's formulation to be extremely useful, that the

auteur theory isn't really a theory so much as an aesthetic.  As such

it allows that there might be other relevant aesthetics relating to

film (the screenwriter as creator, for instance).  As an aesthetic it

doesn't argue for an absolute regarding the importance of director,

so much as a valuable and relevant way to look and and understand

film.

--



- Joe Kaufman